plotinus, complete works, vol 1 kenneth sylvan guthrie (1918)

7/28/2019 Plotinus, Complete Works, VOL 1 Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie (1918)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/plotinus-complete-works-vol-1-kenneth-sylvan-guthrie-1918 1/300



HANDBOUND

AT THE

UNIVERSITY OF

TORONTO PRESS



PLOTINOS

Complete Works

In Chronological Order, Grouped in Four Periods;

With

BIOGRAPHYby PORPHYRY, EUNAPIUS,&SUIDAS,

COMMENTARY by PORPHYRY,

ILLUSTRATIONS by JAMBLICHUS&AMMONIUS,STUDIES in Sources, Development, Influence;

INDEX of Subjects, Thoughts and Words.

by

KENNETH SYLVAN GUTHRIE,

Professor in Extension, University of the South, Sewanee;

A.M.. Sewanee, and Harvard; Ph.D., Tulane, and Columbia.

M.D., Medico-Chirurgical College, Philadelphia.

COMPARATIVE UTKRATURK PRKSS

P. (.). Box 42, AI.I IM :, N.J., U.S.A.



Copyright, 1918, by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie.

All Rights, including that of Translation, Reserved.

Entered atStationers

Hall, by

George Bell and Sons, Portugal Street, Lincoln s Inm, London.



PLOTINOS.

Complete Works

In Chronological Order, Grouped in Four Periods;

With

BIOGRAPHY by PORPHYRY, EuNAPius,&SuiDAS,

COMMENTARY by PORPHYRY,

ILLUSTRATIONS by JAMBLICHUS & AMMONIUS,

STUDIES in Sources, Development, Influence;

INDEX of Subjeds, Thoughts and Words.

by

KENNETH SYLVAN GUTHRIE,Professor in Extension. University of the South, Sewanee;

A.M.. Sewanee, and Harvard; Ph.D., Tulane, and Columbia.

M.D., Medico-Chirurgical College, Philadelphia.

VOL. I

Biographies; Amelian Books, 1-21.

C-OMPARATIVK LITKRATURK PRKSS

I , o. Box 42, Al.l IM :, N.J., U.S.A.



8



FOREWORDIt is only with mixed feelings that such a work can be

published. Overshadowing all is the supreme duty to

the English-speaking world, and secondarily to the rest

of humanity to restore to them in an accessible form

their, till now, unexploited spiritual heritage, with its

flood of light on the origins of their favorite philosophy.

And then comes the contrast the pitiful accomplish

ment. Nor could it be otherwise; for there are pas

sages that never can be interpreted perfectly; moreover, the writer would gladly have devoted to it every

other leisure moment of his life but that was im

possible. As a matter of fact, he would have made this

translation at the beginning of his life, instead of at its

end, had it not been for a mistaken sense of modesty;

but as no one offered to do it, he had to do it himself.

If he had done it earlier, his "Philosophy of Plotinos"

would have been a far better work.

Indeed, if it was not for the difficulty and expense

of putting it out, the writer would now add to the text

an entirely new summary of Plotinos s views. The

fairly complete concordance, however, should be of

service to the student, and help to rectify the latest

German summary of Plotinos, that by Drews, which

in its effort to furnish a foundation for Hartmann s

philosophy of the unconscious, neglected both origins

and spiritual aspects. However, the present genetic



2 FOREWORD

insight of Plotinos s development should make forever

impossible that theory of cast-iron coherence, which is

neither historical nor human.

The writer, having no thesis such as Drews to

justify, will welcome all corrections and suggestions.

He regrets the inevitable uncertainties of capitalization

(as between the supreme One, Intelligence World-Souland Daemon or guardian, and the lower one, intel

ligence, soul and demon or guardian) ;and any other

inconsistencies of which he may have been guilty; and

he beseeches the mantle of charity in view of the

stupendousness of the undertaking, in which he prac-

ticalycould

getno assistance of

any kind,and also in

view of the almost insuperable difficulties of his own

career. He, however, begs to assure the reader that

he did everything "ad majorem Dei



INDEX.

PLOTINOS COMPLETE WORKS.

Preface 1

Concordance of Enneads and Chronological

Numbers2

Concordance of Chronological Numbers and

Enneads

Biography of Plotinos, by Porphyry

Biographies by Eunapius and Suidas 39

Amelian Books, 1-21 40

Amelio-Porphyrian Books, 22-23 283

Porphyrian Books, 34-45 641

Eustochian Books, 46-54 1017

PLOTINIC STUDIES

IN SOURCES, DEVELOPMENT AND INFLUENCE.

1. Development in the Teachings of Plotinos..

12692. Platonism: Significance, Progress, and Re

sults 1288

3. Plotinos View of Matter 1 296

4. Plotinos Creation of the Trinity 13005. Resemblances to Christianity 13076. Indebtedness to Numenius 13137. Value of Plotinos 1327

Concordance to Plotinos. , .i

An outline of the doctrines of Plotinos is publishedunder the title "The Message of Plotinos."



CONCORDANCE OF ENNEADS AND

CHRONOLOGICAL NUMBERS

i.l



CONCORDANCE OF CHRONOLOGICAL



%ife of (blotinos

Hnb rbet of Ibis WritingBy PORPHYRY.

(Written when about 70 years of age. see 23.)

I. PLOTINOS, LIKE PORPHYRY, DESPISED HIS PHY

SICAL NATURE, BUT A PICTURE OF HIM WASSECURED.

Plotinos the philosopher, who lived recently, seemed

ashamed of having a body. Consequently he never

spoke of his family or home (Lycopolis, nowSyput,

in

the Thebaid, in Egypt). He never would permit any

body to perpetuate him in a portrait or statue. One

day that Amelius* begged him to allow a painting tobe made of him, he said, "Is it not enough for me to

have to carry around this imagef, in which nature has

enclosed us? Must I besides transmit to posterity the

image of this image as worthy of attention?" As

Amelius never succeeded in getting Plotinos to recon

sider his refusal, and to consent to give a sitting,

Amelius

beggedhis friend Carterius, the most famous

painter of those times, to attend Plotinos s lectures,

which were free to all. By dint of gazing at Plotinos,

Carterius so filled his own imagination with Plotinos s

features that he succeeded in painting them from

memory. By his advice, Amelius directed Carterius in

these labors, so that this portrait was a very good like-

*See 7, tSee vi. 7, 8.

5



6 LIFE OF PLOT1NOS

ness. All this occurred without the knowledge ofPlotinos.

II. SICKNESS AND DEATH OF PLOTINOS; HIS BIRTHDAY UNKNOWN.

Plotinos was subject to chronic digestive disorders;

nevertheless, he never was willing to take any remedies,

on the plea thatit

was unworthy of a man ofhis

ageto

relieve himself by such means. Neither did he ever

take any of the then popular "wild animal remedy,"

because, said he, he did not even eat the flesh of do

mestic animals, let alone that of savage ones. Henever bathed, contenting himself with daily massageat home. But when at the period of the plague, which

was most virulent,* the man who rubbed him died of

it, he gave up the massage. This interruption in his

habits brought on him a chronic quinsy, which never

became very noticeable, so long as I remained with

him; but after I left him, it became aggravated to the

point that his voice, formerly sonorous and powerful,

became permanently hoarse; besides, his vision became

disturbed, and ulcers appeared on his hands and feet.

All this I learned t n my return, from my friend Eusto-chius, who remained with him until his end. These

inconveniences hindered his friends from seeing him

as often as they used to do, though he persisted in his

former custom of speaking to each one individually.

The only solution of this difficulty was for him to leave

Rome. He retired into Campania, on an estate that

hadbelonged

to Zethus, one of his friends who had

died earlier. All he needed was furnished by the estate

itself, or was brought to him from the estate at Min-

turnae, owned by Castricius (author of a Commentarvon Plato s Parmenides, to whom Porphyry dedicated

his treatise on Vegetarianism). Eustochius himself

told me that he happened to be at Puzzoli at the time

*A. D. 262,



LIFE OF PLOTINOS 7

of Plotinos s death, and that he was slow in reachingthe bedside of Plotinos. The latter then said to him,

"I have been waiting for you; I am trying to unite what

is divine in us* to that which is divine in the universe."

Then a serpent, who happened to be under Plotinos s

death-bed slipped into a hole in the wall (as happened

at the death of Scipio Africanus, Pliny, Hist. Nat. xv.

44),and Plotinos breathed his last. At that time

Plotinos was 66 years old (in 270, born in 205), ac

cording to the account of Eustochius. The emperorClaudius II was then finishing the second year of his

reign. I was at Lilybaeum; Amelius was at Apamaea in

Syria, Castricius in Rome, and Eustochius alone was

with Plotinos. If we start from the second year of

Claudius II and go back 66 years, we will find that

Plotinos s birth falls in the 18th year of SeptimusSeverus (205). He never would tell the month or

day of his birth, because he did not approve of cele

brating his birth-day either by sacrifices, or banquets.

Still he himself performed a sacrifice, and entertained

his friends on the birth-days of Plato and Socrates;

and on those days those who could do it had to write

essays and read them to the assembled company.

III. PLOTINOS S EARLY EDUCATION.

This is as much as we learned about him during

various interviews with him. At eight years of agehe was already under instruction by a grammarian,

though the habit of uncovering his nurse s breast to

suck her milk, with avidity, still clung to him. Oneday, however, she so complained of his importunitythat he became ashamed of himself, and ceased doing:

so.^At 28 years of age he devoted himself entirely to

philosophy. He was introduced to the teachers whoat that time were the most famous in Alexandria. Hewould return from their lectures sad and discouraged.

*See vi. 5, 1.



8 LIFE OF PLOTINOS

He communicated the cause of this grief to one of his

friends, who led him to Ammonius, with whom Plo

tinos was not acquainted. As soon as he heard this

philosopher, he said to his friend, This is the man I

was looking for!" From that day forwards he remained

close to Ammonius. So great a taste for philosophydid he develop, that he made up his mind to study

that which was being taught among the Persians, andamong the Hindus. When emperor Gordian preparedhimself for his expedition against the Persians, Plo-

tinus, then 39 years old, followed in the wake of the

army. He had spent between 10 to 11 years near

Ammonius. After Gordian was killed in Mesopotamia,Plotinos had considerable trouble saving himself at

Antioch. He reached Rome while Philip was emperor,and when he himself was 50 years of age.

THE SCHOOL OF AMMONIUS.

Herennius, (the pagan) Origen, and Plotinos had

agreed to keep secret the teachings they had received

from Ammonius. Plotinos carried out his agreement.Herennius was the first one to break it, and Origen

followed his example. The latter limited himself to

writing a book entitled, "Of Daemons;" and, under

the reign of Gallienus, he wrote another one to provethat "The Emperor alone is the Only Poet" (if the

book was a flattery; which is not likely. Therefore

it probably meant: "The King (of the universe, that

is, the divine Intelligence), is the only demiurgic

Creator.")

PLOTINOS AN UNSYSTEMATIC TEACHER.

For a long period Plotinos did not write anything.

He contented himself with teaching orally what he had

learned from Ammonius. He thus passed ten whole

years teaching a few pupils, without committing any

thing to writing. However, as he allowed his pupils



LIFE OF! PLOTINOS 9

to question him, it often happened that his school wasdisorderly, and that there were useless discussions, as I

later heard from Amelius.

AMELIUS, PLOTINOS S FIRST SECRETARY.

Amelius enrolled himself among the pupils of Plo-

tinos during the third year of Plotinos s stay in Rome,which also was the third year of the reign of Claudius

II, that is, 24 years. Amelius originally had been a

disciple of the Stoic philosopher Lysimachus.* Amelius surpassed all his fellow-pupils by his systematic

methods of study. He had copied, gathered, and al

most knew by heart all the works of Numenius. He

composed a hundred copy-books of notes taken at the

courses of Plotinos, and he gave them as a present to

his adopted son, Hostilianus Hesychius, of Apamea.(Fragments of Amelius s writings are found scattered

in those of Proclus, Stobaeus, Olympiodorus, Damas-

cius, and many of the Church Fathers.)

IV. HOW PORPHYRY CAME TO PLOTINOS. FOR THEFIRST TIME, IN 253.

In the tenth year of the reign of Gallienus, I (then

being twenty years of age), left Greece and went to

Rome with Antonius of Rhodes. I found there Amelius,

who had been following the courses of Plotinos for

eighteen years. He had not yet dared to write any

thing, except a few books of notes, of which there were

not yet as many as a hundred. In this tenth year of

the reign of Gallienus, Plotinos was fifty-nine years

old. WhenI (for the second, and more important

time) joined him, I was thirty years of age. Duringthe first year of Gallienus, Plotinos began to write

upon some topics of passing interest, and in the tenth

year of Gallienus, when I visited him for the first time,

he had written twenty-one books, which had been

circulated only among a very small number of friends.

*See 20.



10 LIFE OF PLOTINOS

They were not given out freely, andit was not

easyto go through them. They were communicated to

to students only under precautionary measures, and

after the judgment of those who received them had

been carefully tested.

PLOTINOS S BOOKS OF THE FIRST PERIOD(THE AMELIAN PERIOD).

I shallmention

thebooks

that Plotinoshad

alreadv

written at that time. As he had prefixed no titles to

them, several persons gave them different ones. Here

are those that have asserted themselves:

1. Of the Beautiful. i. 6.

2. Of the Immortality of the Soul. iv. 7.

3. Of Fate. iii. 1.

4. Of the Nature of the Soul. iv. 1.

5. Of Intelligence, of Ideas, and of Existence, v. 9.

6. Of the Descent of the Soul into the Body. iv. 8.

7. How does that which is Posterior to the First

Proceed from Him? Of the One. v. 4.

8. Do all the Souls form but a Single Soul? iv. 9.

9. Of the Good, or of the One. vi. 9.

10. Of the Three Principal Hypostatic Forms of

Existence, v. 1.

11. Of Generation, and of the Order of Things after

the First, v. 2.

12. (Of the Two) Matters, (the Sensible and In

telligible) . ii. 4.

13. Various Considerations, iii. 9.

14. Of the (Circular) Motion of the Heavens, ii. 2.

1 5. Of the

DaemonAllotted to

Us,iii. 4.

16. Of (Reasonable) Suicide, i. 9.

1 7. Of Quality, ii. 6.

18. Are there~ Ideas of Individuals? v. 7.

19. Of Virtues. i. 2.

20. Of Dialectics. i. 3

21. (How does the Soul keep the Mean between In

divisible Nature and Divisible Nature? ) iv. 2



LIFE OF PLOTINOS 11

These twenty-one books were already written whenI visited Plotinos; he was then in the fifty-ninth yearof his age.

V. HOW PORPHYRY CAME TO PLOTINOS FOR THESECOND TIME (A. D. 263-269).

I remained with him this year, and the five follow

ing ones. I had already visited Rome ten years pre

viously; but at that time Plotinos spent his summers

in vacation, and contented himself with instructing his

visitors orally.

During the above-mentioned six years, as several

questions had been cleared up in the lectures of Plo

tinos, and at the urgent request of Amelius and mv-

self that he write them down, he wrote two books toprove that

PLOTINOS S BOOKS OF THE SECOND PERIOD(THE PORPHRYRIAN PERIOD).

22. The One and Identical Existence is Everywhere

Entire, I, vi. 4.

23. Second Part Thereof. vi. 5.Then he wrote the book entitled:

24. The Superessential Transcendent Principle DoesNot Think. Which is the First Thinking

Principle? And Which is the Second? v. 6.

He also wrote the following books:

25. Of Potentiality and Actualization. ii. 5.

26. Of theImpassibility

of

IncorporealEntities, iii. 6.

27. Of the Soul, First Part. iv. 3.

28. Of the Soul, Second Part. iv. 4.

29. (Of the Soul, Third; or, How do We See? ) iv. 5.

30. Of Contemplation. iii. 8.

31. Of Intelligible Beauty. v. 8.

32. The Intelligible Entities are not Outside of In

telligence. Of Intelligence and of Soul. v. 5.

33. Against the Gnostics. ii. 9.

(To be continued.)



12 LIFE OF PLOTINOS

34. Of Numbers. vi. 6.

35. Why do Distant Objects Seem Small? ii. 8.

36. Does Happiness (Consist in Duration?) i. 5.

37. Of the Mixture with Total Penetration. ii. 7.

38. Of the Multitude of Ideas; Of the Good. vi. 7.

39. Of the Will. vi. 8.

40. (Of the World). ii. 1.

41. OfSensation,

and of

Memory.iv. 6.

42. Of the Kinds of Existence, First. vi. 1.

43. Of the Kinds of Existence, Second. vi. 2.

44. Of the Kinds of Existence, Third. vi. 3.

45. Of Eternity and Time. iii. 7.

Plotinos wrote these twenty-four books during the

six years I spent with him; as subjects he would take

the problems that happened to come up, and which wehave indicated by the titles of these books. These

twenty-four books, joined to the twenty-one Plotinos

had written before I came to him, make forty-five.

VI. PLOTINOS S BOOKS OF THE THIRD PERIOD(THE EUSTOCHIAN PERIOD).

While I was in Sicily, where I went in the fifteenth

year of the reign of Gallienus, he wrote five new books

that he sent me:

46. Of Happiness. i. 4.

47. Of Providence, First. iii. 2.

48. Of Providence, Second. iii. 3.

49.

Ofthe

Hypostasesthat Act as

Meansof

Knowledge, and of the Transcendent. v. 3.

50. Of Love. iii. 5.

These books he sent me in the last year of the reign

of Claudius II, and at the beginning of the second.

Shortly before dying, he sent me the following four

books:

(To be continued.)



LIFE OF PLOTINOS 13

51. Of the Nature of Evils. i. 8.

52. Of the Influence of the Stars. ii. 3.

53. What is the Animal ? What is Man ? i. 1 .

54. Of the First Good (or, of Happiness). i. 7.

These nine books, with the forty-five previously

written, make in all fifty-four.

Somewere

composed duringthe

youthof the

author,others when in his bloom, and finally the last, when

his body was already seriously weakened; and they

betray his condition while writing them. The twenty-

one first books seem to indicate a spirit which does

not yet possess all its vigor and firmness. Those that

he wrote during the middle of his life, show that his

genius was then in its full form. These twenty-four

books may be considered to be perfect, with the excep

tion of a few passages. The last nine are less powerful than the others; and of these nine, the last four are

the weakest.

VII. VARIOUS DISCIPLES OF PLOTINOS.

Plotinos had a great number of auditors and dis

ciples, who were attracted to his courses by love of

philosophy.

Among this number was Amelius of Etruria, whose

true name was Gentilianus. He did indeed insist that

in his name the letter "1" should be replaced by "r,"

so that his name should read "Amerius," from "ameria"

(meaning indivisibility, though Suidas states that it wasderived from the town of Ameria, in the province of

Umbria), and not Amelius, from "amellia" (negli

gence) .

A very zealous disciple of Plotinos was a physicianfrom Scythopolis (or, Bethshean, in Palestine), named

Paulinus, whose mind was full of ill-digested informa

tion, and whom Amelius used to call Mikkalos (thetiny).



14 LIFE OF PLOTINOS

Eustochius of Alexandria, also a physician, knewPlotinos at the end of his life, and remained with him

until his death, to care for him. Exclusively occupiedwith the teachings of Plotinos, he himself became a

genuine philosopher.

Zoticus, also, attached himself to Plotinos. He was

both critic and poet; he corrected the works of Anti-

machus,and

beautifullyversified the fable of the

Atlantidae. His sight gave out, however, and he died

shortly before Plotinos. Paulinus also, died before

Plotinos.

Zethus was one of the disciples of Plotinos. He

was a native of Arabia, and had married the daughterof Theodosius, friend of Ammonius. He was a phy

sician, and much beloved by Plotinos, who sought to

lead him to withdraw from public affairs, for which he

had considerable aptitude; and with which he occupiedhimself with zeal. Plotinos lived in very close rela

tions with him; he even retired to the country estate

of Zethus, distant six miles from Minturnae.

Castricius, surnamed Firmus, had once owned this

estate. Nobody, in our times, loved virtue more than

Firmus. He held Plotinos in the deepest veneration.He rendered Amelius the same services that might have

been rendered by a good servant, he displayed for methe attentions natural towards a brother. Neverthe

less this man, who was so attached to Plotinos, re

mained engaged in public affairs.

Several senators, also, came to listen to Plotinos.

MarcellusOrontius,

Sabinillus andRogatianus applied

themselves, under Plotinos, to the study of philosophy.The latter, who also was a member of the seriate,

had so detached himself from the affairs of life, that

he had abandoned all his possessions, dismissed all his

attendants, and renounced all his dignities. On being

appointed praetor, at the moment of being inaugurated,while the lictors were already waiting for him, he re

fused to sally forth, and carry out any of the functions



LIFE OF PLOTINOS 15

of this dignity. He even failed to dwell in his ownhouse (to avoid needless pomp) ;he visited his friends,

boarding and sleeping there; he took food only every

other day; and by this dieting, after having been af

flicted with gout to the point of having to be carried

around in a litter, he recovered his strength, and

stretched out his hands as easily as any artisan, though

formerly his hands had been incapacitated. Plotinos

was very partial to him; he used to praise him publicly,

and pointed him out as a model to all who desired to

become philosophers.Another disciple of Plotinos was Serapion of Alex

andria. At first he had been a rhetorician, and onlylater applied himself to philosophy. Nevertheless he

never was able to cure himself of fondness for riches,

or usury.Me also, Porphyry, a native of Tyre, Plotinos ad

mitted to the circle of his intimate friends, and he

charged me to give the final revision to his v/orks.

VIII. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PLOTINOS.

Once Plotinos had written

something,he could

neither retouch, nor even re-read what he had done,

because his weak eyesight made any reading very

painful. His penmanship was poor. He did notsepa"-

rate words, and his spelling was defective; he was

chiefly occupied with ideas. Until his death he con

tinuously persisted in this habit, which was for us all

a subject of surprise. When he had finished composing

something in his head, and when he then wrote whathe had meditated on, it seemed as if he copied a book.

Neither in conversation nor in discussion did he allow

himself to be distracted from the purpose of his

thoughts, so that he was able at the same time to attend

to the needs of conversation, while pursuing the medi

tation of the subject which busied him. When the



16 LIFE OF PLOTINOS

person who had been talking with him went away, he

did not re-read what he had written before the inter

ruption, which, as has been mentioned above, was to

save his eyesight; he could, later on, take up the thread

of his composition as if the conversation had been no

obstacle to his attention. He therefore was able simul

taneously to live with others and with himself. Henever seemed to need recuperation from this interior

attention,which

hardlyceased

duringhis

slumbers,which, however, were troubled both by the insufficiency

of food, for sometimes he did not even eat bread, and

by this continuous concentration of his mind.

IX. PLOTINOS AS GUARDIAN AND ARBITRATOR.

There were women who were very much attached to

him. There was his boarding house keeper Gemina,

and her daughter, also called Gemina; there was also

Amphiclea, wife of Aristo, son of Jamblichus, all three

of whom were very fond of philosophy. Several menand women of substance, being on the point of death,

entrusted him with their boys and girls, and all their

possessions, as being an irreproachable trustee; and the

result was that his house was filled with young boys and

girls. Amongthese

was Polemo, whomPlotinos edu

cated carefully; and Plotinos enjoyed hearing Polemo

recite original verses(

?)

. He used to go through the

accounts of the managers with care, and saw to their

economy; he used to say that until these young peopledevoted themselves entirely to philosophy, their possessions should be preserved intact, and see that they

enjoyed their full incomes. The obligation of attending

to the needs of so many wards did not, however, hinder

him from devoting to intellectual concerns a continuous

attention during the nights. His disposition was gentle,

and he was very approachable by all who dwelt with

him. Consequently, although he dwelt full twenty-six

years in Rome, and though he was often chosen as



LIFE OF PLOT1NOS 17

arbitrator indisputes,

never did he offendany public

personage.

X. HOW PLOTINOS TREATED HIS ADVERSARY,OLYMPIUS.

Among those who pretended to be philosophers,

there was a certain man named Olympius. He lived in

Alexandria, and for some time had been a disciple of

Ammonius. As he desired to succeed better thanPlotinos, he treated Plotinos with scorn, and developedsufficient personal animosity against Plotinos to try to

bewitch him by magical operations. However, Olympius noticed that this enterprise was really turning

against himself, and he acknowledged to his friends

that the soul of Plotinos must be very powerful, since

it was able to throw back upon his enemies the evil

practices directed against him. The first time that

Olympius attempted to harm him, Plotinos havingnoticed it, said, "At this very moment the body of

Olympius is undergoing convulsions, and is contractinglike a

purse."As Olympius several times felt himself

undergoing the very ills he was trying to get Plotinos

to undergo, he finally ceased his practices.

HOMAGE TO PLOTINOS FROM A VISITING EGYPTIANPRIEST.

Plotinos showed a natural superiority to other men.

An Egyptian priest, visiting Rome, was introduced to

him by a mutual friend. Having decided to show some

samples of his mystic attainments, he begged Plotinos

to come and witness the apparition of a familiar spirit

who obeyed him on being evoked. The evocation wasto occur in a chapel of Isis, as the Egyptian claimed that

he had not been able to discover any other place pure

enough in Rome. He therefore evoked Plotinos s

guardian spirit. But instead of the spirit appeared a

divinity of an order superior to that of guardians, whichevent led the Egyptian to say to Plotinos, "You are



18 LIFE OF PLOTINOS

indeed fortunate, O Plotinos, that your guardian spirit

is a divinity, instead of a being of a lower order." Thedivinity that appeared could not be questioned or seen

for as long a period as they would have liked, as a

friend who was watching over the sacrificed birds

choked them, either out of jealousy, or fear.

PLOTINOS S ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE PUBLICMYSTERIES.

As Plotinos s guardian spirit was a divinity, Plotinos

kept the eyes of his own spirit directed on that divine

guardian. That was the motive of his writing his

book* that bears the title "Of the Guardian Allotted

to Us." In it he tries to explain the differences between

the various spirits that watch over mankind. Amelius,

who was very scrupulous in his sacrifices, and who care

fully

celebrated the Festivals of the New Moon (as

Numenius used to do?) (on the Calends of each

month), one day besought Plotinos to come and take

part in a function of that kind. Plotinos, however,answered him, "It is the business of those divinities

to come and visit me, and not mine to attend on

them." We could not understand why he should makean utterance that revealed so much pride, but we dared

not question the matter.

XL PLOTINOS AS DETECTIVE AND AS PROPHET;PORPHYRY SAVED FROM SUICIDE.

So perfectly did he understand the character of men,and their methods of thought, that he could discover

stolen objects, and foresaw what those who resided

with him should some day become. A magnificent

necklace had been stolen from Chione, an estimable

\\idow, who resided with him and the children (as

matron ?)

. All the slaves were summoned, and

Plotinos examined them all. Then, pointing out one

of them, he said, "This is the culprit."He was put to

*iii. 4.



LIFE OF PLOTINOS 19

the torture. For a long while, he denied the deed; butlater acknowledged it, and returned the necklace.

Plotinos used to predict what each of the young peoplewho were in touch with him was to become. He in

sisted that Polemo would be disposed to amorous re

lations, and would not live long; which also occurred.

As to me, he noticed that I was meditating suicide. Hecame and sought me, in his house, where I was staying.

He told me that this project indicated an unsound mind,

and that it was the result of a melancholy disposition.

He advised me to travel. I obeyed him. I went to

Sicily,* to study under Probus, a celebrated philosopher,

who dwelt in Lilybaeum. I was thus cured of the

desire to die; but I was deprived of the happiness of

residing with Plotinos until his death.

XII. THE PROJECT OF A PLATONOPOLIS COMESTO NAUGHT.

The emperor Gallienus and the empress Salonina,

his wife, held Plotinos in high regard. Counting on

their good will, he besought them to have a ruined town

in Campania rebuilt, to give it with all its territory to

him, that its inhabitants might be ruled by the laws of

Plato. Plotinos intended to have it named Platono-

polis, and to go and reside there with his disciples.

This request would easily have been granted but that

some of the emperor s courtiers opposed this project,

either from spite, jealousy, or other unworthy motive.

XIII. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PLOTINOS SDELIVERY.

In his lectures his delivery was very good; he knewhow to make immediate apposite replies. Nevertheless,his language was not correct. For instance, he used

to say "anamnemisketai" for "anamimnesketai"; and

he made similar blunders in writing. But when he would

speak, his intelligence seemed to shine in his face, and*See above, 6.



20 LIFE OF PLOTINOS

to illuminate it with its rays. He grew especially hand

some in discussions; a light dew of perspiration ap

peared on his forehead, gentleness radiated in his

countenance, he answered kindly, but satisfactorily.

For three days I had to question him, to learn from him

his opinions about the union of the body with the

soul; he spent all that time in explaining to me whatI wanted to know.* A cerain Thaumasius, who had

entered into theschool, said that he wanted to takedown the arguments of the discussion in writing, and

hear Plotinos himself speak; but that he would not

stand Porphyry s answering and questioning. "Never

theless," answered Plotinos, "if Porphyry does not, byhis questions, bring up the difficulties that we should

solve (notice, in the course of the Enneads, the con

tinual objections), we would have nothing to write."

XIV. PHILOSOPHICAL RELATIONS OF PLOTINOS.

The style of Plotinos is vigorous and substantial,

containing more thoughts than words, and is often full

of enthusiasm and emotion. He follows his own in

spirations rather than ideas transmitted by tradition.

The teachings of the Stoics and Peripatetics are secretly

mingled among his works; the whole of Aristotle s

Metaphysics is therein condensed. Plotinos was fully

up to the times in geometry, arithmetic, mechanics,

optics and music, although he did not take an over

weening interest in these sciences. At his lectures were

read the Commentaries of Severus, of Croniiis;f of

Numenius,t of Gaius and Atticus (Platonic Philoso

phers,the

latter, settingforth

thedifferences

betweenPlato and Aristotle) ;||there were also readings of

the works of the Peripatetics, of Aspasius, of Alexander

(of Aphrodisia, whose theory of Mixture in the Universe

*See iv. 2.

fOften quoted by. Porphyry in his Cave of the Nymphs.

iSee 3. ||Euseb. Prep. Ev. xi. 2; xv. 4-9, 12-13.



LIFE OF PLOTINOS 21

Plotinosstudies several

times),of

Adrastus, and otherphilosophers of the day. None of them, however, was

exclusively admired by Plotinos. In his speculations he

revealed an original and independent disposition. In

all his researches he displayed the spirit of Ammonius.

He could readily assimilate (what he read) ; then, in

a few words, he summarized the ideas aroused in him

by profound meditation thereon. One day Longinus s

book "On the Principles," and his "On Antiquarians"

were read. Plotinos said, "Longinus is a literary man,but not a philosopher." Origen (the Pagan*) once

came among his audience; Plotinos blushed, and started

to rise. Origen, however, besought him to continue.

Plotinos, however, answered that it was only natural

for lecturers to cease talking when they were aware

of the presence, in the audience, of people who alreadyknew what was to be said. Then, after having spokena little longer, he rose.

XV. PORPHYRY EARNED RECOGNITION AT THESCHOOL OF PLOTINOS.

At a celebration of Plato s birthday I was readinga

poemabout the

"Mystic Marriage"

(ofthe

Soul)when somebody doubted my sanity, because it con

tained both enthusiasm and mysticism. Plotinos spoke

up, and said to me, loud enough to be heard by every

body, "You have just proved to us that you are at the

same time poet, philosopher, and hierophant." Onthis occasion the rhetorician Diophanes read an

apology on the utterances of Alcibiades in Plato s

"Banquet," and he sought to prove that a disciple whoseeks to exercise himself in virtue should show unlimited

"complaisance"for his teacher, even in case

the latter were in love with him. Plotinos rose several

times, as if he wanted to leave the assembly; never

theless, he restrained himself, and after the audience

*See 3.



22 LIFE OF PLOTINOS

had dispersed, he asked me to refute the paper. As

Diophanes would not communicate it to me, I recalled

his arguments, and refuted them; and then I read mypaper before the same auditors as those who had heard

what had been said by Diophanes. I pleased Plotinos

so much, that several times he interrupted me by the

words, "Strike that way, and you will become the light

of men!" When Eubulus, who was teaching Platonism

at Athens, sent to Plotinos some papers on Platonicsubjects, Plotinos had them given to me to examine

them and report to him about them. He also studied

the laws of astronomy, but not as a mathematician

would have done; he carefully studied astrology; but

realizing that no confidence could be placed in its

predictions, he took the trouble to refute them several

times, in his work.*

XVI. PLOTINOS S POLEMIC AGAINST THEGNOSTICS.

At that time there were many Christians, amongwhom were prominent sectarians who had given upthe ancient philosophy (of Plato and Pythagoras),such as Adelphius and Aquilinus. They esteemed and

possessed the greater part of the works of Alexanderof Lybia, of Philocomus, of Demostrates and of Lydus.

They advertised the Revelations of Zoroaster, of

Zostrian, of Nicotheus, of Allogenes, of Mesus, and of

several others. These sectarians deceived a great

number of people, and even deceived themselves, in

sisting that Plato had not exhausted the depths of in

telligible "being,"or essence. That is why Plotinos

refuted them at length in his lectures, and wrpte the

book that we have named "Againstthe Gnostics." The

rest (of their books) he left me to investigate. Amelius

wrote as much as forty books to refute the work of

Zostrian; and as to me, I demonstrated by numerous

*See ii. 3; iii. 1, 2, 4.



LIFE OF PLOTINOS 23

proofsthat this

allegedZoroastrian book was

apocryphal, and had only recently been written by those

of that ilk who wished to make people believe that

their doctrines had been taught by Zoroaster.

XVII. START OF THE AMELIO-PORPHYRIAN CONTROVERSY, OVER NUMENIUS.

The Greeks insisted that Plotinos had appropriated

the teachings of Numenius. Trypho, who was both a

Stoic and a Platonist, insisted on this to Amelius, whowrote a book that we have entitled, "On the Differ

ence Between the Teachings of Plotinos and Numenius.

" He dedicated it to me under the title, To Basil"

(the King, recently used as a name, "Royal").That

was my name before I was called"Porphyry,"

the

"Purple One." In my own home language (Phoenician) I used to be called "Malchus";that was my father s

name, and in Greek "Malchus" is translated by "Basil-

eus" (Basil, or King). Indeed, Longinus, who dedi

cated his book "On Instinct" to Cleodamus, and

me jointly, there calls me "Malchus"; and Amelius has

translated this name in Greek, just as Numenius trans

lated "Maximus" (from Latin into Greek by) "Mega-

os" (the great one). (I will quote the letter in full).

"Greetings from Amelius to Basil (Royal, or Purple

One) :

"You may be sure that I did not have the least

inclination even to mention some otherwise respectable

people who, to the point of deafening you, insist that

the doctrines of our friend (Plotinos) are none other

than those of Numenius of Apamea. It is evident

enough that these reproaches are entirely due to their

desire to advertise their oratorical abilities. Possessed

with the desire to rend Plotinos to pieces, they dare to

o-o as far as to assert that he is no more than a babbler,

a forger, and that his opinions are impossible. But

since you think that it would be well for us to seize



24 LIFE OF PLOTINOS

the occasion to recall to the public the teachings of

which we approve (in Plotinos s system of philosophy),and in order to honor so great a man as our friend

Plotinos by spreading his teachings although this

really is needless, inasmuch as they have long since

become celebrated I comply with your request, and,

in accordance with my promise, I am hereby inscribing

to you this work which, as you well know, I threw

together in three days. You will not find in it that

system and judiciousness natural to a book composedwith care; they are only reflections suggested by the

lectures (received from Plotinos), and arranged as they

happened to come to mind. I, therefore, throw myselfon your indulgence, especially as the thought of

(Plotinos, that) philosopher whom some people are

slandering

to us, is not easy to grasp, because he ex

presses the same ideas in different manners in accord

ance with the exigencies of the occasion. I am sure

you will have the goodness to correct me, if I happento stray from the opinions of Plotinos. As the tragic

poet says somewhere, being overwhelmed with the

pressure of duties, I find myself compelled to submit to

criticism and correction if I am discovered in altering

the doctrines of our leader. You see how anxious I

amto please you. Farewell!"

XVIII. POLEMIC BETWEEN AMELIUS AND PORPHYRY; AMELIUS TEACHES PORPHYRY.

I have quoted this letter in full to show that, even

in the times of Plotinos himself, it was claimed that

Plotinos had borrowed and advertised as his own teach

ings of Numenius; also that he was called a trifler, and

in short that he was scorned which happened chiefly

because he was not understood. Plotinos was far from

the display and vanity of the Sophists. When lectur

ing, he seemed to be holding a conversation with his

pupils. He did not try to convince you by a formal



LIFE OF PLOTINOS 25

argument.

This I realized from the first, when attend

ing his courses. I wished to make him explain himself

more clearly by writing against him a work to provethat the intelligible entities subsist outside of intellig

ence.* Plotinos had Amelius read it to him; and after

the reading he laughingly said to him, "It would be

well for you to solve these difficulties that Porphyry has

advanced against me, because he does not clearly

understand my teachings." Amelius indeed wrote arather voluminous work to answer my objections.f

In turn, I responded. Amelius wrote again. This third

work at last made me understand, but not without

difficulty, the thought of Plotinos; and I changed myviews, reading my retraction at a meeting. Since that

time, I have had complete confidence in the teachingsof Plotinos. I

beggedhim to

polishhis

writings,and

to explain his system to me more at length. I also

prevailed upon Amelius to write some works.

XIX. HOW THE WORKS OF PLOTINOS WERE PUTINTO SHAPE.

You may judge of the high opinion of Plotinos held

by Longinus, from a part of a letter he addressed to me.

I was in Sicily; he wished me to visit him in Phoenicia,

and desired me to bring him a copy of the works of

that philosopher. This is what he wrote to me about

the matter:

"Please send me the works; or rather, bring themwith you; for I shall never cease begging you to travel

in this one of all other countries, were it only because

of our ancient friendship, and of the sweetness of the

air, which would so well suit your ruined health ;J for

you must not expect to find any new knowledge here

when you visit us. Whatever your expectations may be,

*See v. 5.

fThis suggests that Suidas was right in claiming that Ameliuswas the teacher of Porphyry. JSee 11.



26 LIFE OF PLOTINOS

do not expect to find anything new here, nor even theancient works (of myself, Longinus? )

that you say are

lost. There is such a scarcity of copyists here, that since

I have been here I have hardly been able to get what

I lacked of Plotinos here, by inducing my copyist to

abandon his usual occupations to devote himself ex

clusively to this work. Now that I have those works

of Plotinos you sent me, I think I have them all; but

these that I have are imperfect, being full of errors.

I had supposed that our friend Amelius had corrected

the errors of the copyist; but his occupations have been

too pressing to allow of his attending to this. However passionately I desire to examine what Plotinos has

written about the soul, and about existence, I do not

know what use to make of his writings; these are pre

cisely those of his works that have been most mis-written by the copyists. That is why I wish you would

send them to me transcribed exactly; I would comparethe copies and return them promptly. I repeat that I

beg you not to send them, but to bring them yourself

with the other works of Plotinos, which might have

escaped Amelius. All those he brought here I have

had transcribed exactly; for

whyshould I not most

zealously seek works so precious? I have often told

you, both when we were together, and apart, and

when you were at Tyre, that Plotinos s works con

tained reasonings of which I did not approve, but that

I liked and admired his method of writing; his concise

and forceful style, and the genuinely philosophical ar

rangement of his discussions. I am persuaded that

those who seek the truth must place the works ofPlotinos among the most learned."

XX. OPINION OF LONGINUS, THE GREAT CRITIC,

ABOUT PLOTINOS.

I have made this rather long quotation only to show

what was thought of Plotinos by the greatest critic of



LIFE OF PLOTINOS 27

our days, the man who had examined all the works ofhis time. At first Longinus had scorned Plotinos, be

cause he had relied on the reports of people ignorant

(of philosophy). Moreover, Longinus supposed that

the copy of the works of Plotinos he had received from

Amelius was defective, because he was not yet accus

tomed to the style of Plotinos. Nevertheless, if anyone had the works of Plotinos in their purity, it was

certainly Amelius, who possessed a copy made uponthe originals themselves. I will further add what was

written by Longinus about Plotinos, Amelius, and the

other philosophers of his time, so that the reader maybetter appreciate this great critic s high opinion of

them. This book, directed against Plotinos and Gen-

tilianus Amelius, is entitled "Of the Limit (of Good and

Evil?)" and begins as follows:There were, O Marcellus Orontius* many philoso

phers in our time, and especially in the first years of

our childhood for it is useless to complain of their

rarity at the present; but when I was still a youth,there were still a rather goodly number of men cele

brated as philosophers. I was fortunate enough to

get acquaintedwith all of

them,because I traveled

early with our parents in many countries. Visiting

many nations and towns, I entered into personal rela

tions with such of these men as were still alive. Amongthese philosophers, some committed their teachings to

writings, with the purpose of being useful to posterity,while others thought that it was sufficient for them to

explain their opinions to their disciples. Among the

former are the Platonists Euclides, Democritus (whowrote Commentaries on the Alcibiades, on the Phaedo,and on the Metaphysics of Aristotle), Proclinus, whodwelt in the Troad, Plotinos and his disciple Gentil-

ianus Amelius, who are at present teaching at Rome;the Stoics Themistocles, Phebion, and both Annius and*See 7.



28 LIFE OF PLOT1NOS

Medius, who were much talked of

onlyrecently, and

the Peripatetician Heliodorus of Alexandria. Amongthose who did not write their teachings are the Platon-

ists Ammonius (Saccas) and (the pagan) Origen,*who lived with him for a long while, and who excelled

among the philosophers of that period; also Theodotus

and Eubulus, who taught at Athens. Of course, theydid write a little; Origen, for instance, wrote about

"The Guardian Spirits"; and Eubulus wrote Commentaries on the Philebus, and on the Gorgias, and

"Observations on Arsitotle s Objections against Plato s

Republic." However, these works are not con

siderable enough to rank their authors among those

who have seriously treated of philosophy; for these

little works were by them written only incidentally, and

theydid not make

writingtheir

principal occupation.The Stoics Herminus, Lysimachus,f Athenaeus and

Musonius (author of "Memorable Events," translated

in Greek by Claudius Pollio), who lived at Athens.

The Peripateticians Ammonius and Ptolemy, who were

the most learned of their contemporaries, especially

Ammonius, whose erudition was unequalled, none of

these philosophers wrote any important work; they

limited themselves to writing poems, or festal orations,

which have been preserved in spite of them. I doubt

very much that they wished to be known by posterity

merely by books so small (and unrepresentative),since they had neglected to acquaint us with their teach

ings in more significant works. Among those who have

left written works, some have done no more than gatheror transcribe what has been left to us from the ancient

(philosophers) ; among these are Euclides, Democritus

and Proclinus. Others limited themselves to recallingsome details extracted from ancient histories, and

they tried to compose books with the same materials

as their predecessors, as did Annius, Medius, and Phebio;

*See 3. fSee 3.



LIFE OF PLOTINOS 29

the latter one trying to make himself famous by style,

rather than by thought. To these we might add Helio-

dorus, who has put in his writings nothing that had not

been said by the ancients, without adding any philo

sophical explanation. But Plotinos and Gentilianus

Amelius, have shown that they really made a pro

fession of being writers, both by the great number of

questions they treated, and by the originality of their

doctrines. Plotinos explained the principles of Pythagoras and Plato more clearly than his predecessors;

for neither Numenius, nor Cronius, nor Moderatus,*

nor Thrasyllus,$ come anywhere near the precision of

Plotinos when they touch on the same topics. Amelius

tried to follow in his footsteps, and adopted the greater

part of his ideas; but differs from him in the verbosity

of his demonstrations, and the diffusion of his style.

The writings of these two men alone deserve special

consideration; for what is the use of criticizing the

works of imitators; had we not better study the authors

whose works they copied, without any additions, either

in essential points, or in argumentation, doing no more

than choosing out the best? This has been our method

of procedure in our controversy with Gentilianus

Amelius s strictures on justice, in Plato s works; andin my examination of Plotinos s books on the Ideas.

So when our mutual friends Basil of Tyre, ( Porphyry] I ) ,

who has written much on the lines of Plotinos, havingeven preferred the teachings of Plotinos to my own

(as he had been my pupil), undertook to demonstrate

that Plotinos s views about the Ideas were better than

my own,I have

fullyrefuted his

contentions, provingthat he was wrong in changing his views on the sub-

jectJ Besides, I have criticized several opinions of

*Menticmed in Porphyry s Life of Pythagoras, 48, living under

Nero.

^Living underATiberius, see Suetonius, Life of Tiberius, 14.

Seevi. 5. ||See 17. fiSee 18.



30 LIFE OF PLOTINOS

Gentilianus Amelius and Plotinos, as for instance in

the "Letter to Amelius" which is long enough to forma whole book. I wrote it to answer a letter sent mefrom Rome by Amelius, which was entitled "The

Characteristics of the Philosophy of Plotinos."* I,

however, limited myself to entitling my little work,"A Letter to Amelius."

XXI. RESULTS OF LONGINUS S CRITICISM ANDVINDICATION OF PLOTINOS S ORIGINALITY.

From the above it will be seen that Plotinos and

Amelius are superior to all their contemporaries by the

great number of questions they consider, and by the

originality of their system; that Plotinos had not ap

propriated the opinions of Numenius, and that he did

not even follow them; that he had really profited bythe opinions of the Pythagoreans (and of Plato) ;

further, that he was more precise than Numenius,

Cronius, and Thrasyllus. After having said that

Amelius followed in the footsteps of Plotinos, but that

he was prolix and diffuse in his expositions, which

characteristic forms the difference between their styles,

hespeaks

of

me,who at that time had known Plotinos

for only a short time, and says, "Our mutual friends,

Basil (King) of Tyre (Porphyry), who has written

much, taking Plotinos as his model." By that he

means that I have avoided the rather unphilosophicaldiffuseness of Amelius, and have imitated the (concise)

style of Plotinos. The quotation of the judgment of

this famous man, the first critic of his day, should de

cide of the reverence due to our philosopher, Plotinos.

If I had been able to visit Longinus when he beggedme to do so, he would not have undertaken the refuta

tion he wrote, before having clearly understood

Plotinos s system.

*See 17.



LIFE OF PLOTINOS 31

XXII. THE APOLLONIAN ORACLE ABOUT PLOTINOS.

(But when I have a long oracle of Apollo to quote,

why should I delay over a letter of Longinus s, or, in

the words of the proverb, quoted in Iliad xxii. 126 and

Hesiod Theogony 35), "Whyshould I dally near the

oak-trees, or the rock?"

If the testimony of the wise

is to be adduced, who is wiser than Apollo, a deity whosaid of

himself,"I know the number of the

grainsof

sand, and the extent of the ocean; I understand the

dust, and I hear him who does not speak!" This was

the divinity who had said that Socrates was the wisest

of men; and on being consulted by Amelius to discover

what had become of the soul of Plotinos, said:

"Let me sing an immortal hymn to my dear friend!

Drawing my golden bow,I will elicit

melodious soundsfrom my lyre.

I also invoke the symphonic voice of the, choir of

Muses,

Whose harmonious power raises exultant paeans,

As they once sang in chorus in praise of Achilles,

A Homeric song in divine inspiration.

Sacred choir of Muses, let us together celebrate this

man,For long-haired Apollo is among you!

"O Deity, who formerly wert a man, but now ap-

proachestThe divine host of guardian spirits, delivered from the

narrowing bonds of necessity

That enchains man (while in the body), and from the

tumult caused by theConfusing whirlwind of the passions of the body,Sustained by the vigor of thy mind, thou hastenest to

swim

(And like the sage Ulysses in Phaeacia), to land on a

shore not submerged by the waves,With vigorous stroke, far from the impious crowds.



32 LIFE OF PLOTINOS

Persistently followingthe

straightening pathof the

purified soul,

Where the splendor of the divinity surrounds you, the

home of justice,

Far from contamination, in the holy sanctuary of

initiation,

When in the past you struggled to escape the bitter

waves,*

When blood-stained life eddied around you with re

pulsive currents,

In the midst of the waters dazed by frightening tumult,

Even then the divinities often showed you your end;tAnd often, when your spirit was about to stray from the

right path,

The immortals beckoned you back to the real end; the

eternalpath,

Enlightening your eyes with radiant beams in the midst

of gloomy darkness.

No deep slumber closed your eyelids, and when shaken

by the eddies (of matter),You sought to withdraw your eyes from the night that

pressed down upon them;You beheld beauties hidden from any who devote them

selves to the study of wisdom."Now that you have discarded your cloak of mor

tality, and ascended

Climbing out from the tombs of your angelic soul,

You have entered the choir of divinities, where breathes

a gentle zephyr.There dwell friendship, and delightful desire, ever ac

companied by pure joy;There may one quench one s thirst with divine ambrosia;

There bound by the ties of love, one breathes a gentle

air, under a tranquil sky.

*See ii. 3. 17.

tSce 23.



LIFE OF PLOTINOS 33

There dwell the sons of Jupiter, who lived in the golden

age;The brothers Minos and Rhadamanthus, the just

Aeacus,

The divine Plato, the virtuous Pythagoras,

And all those who formed the band of immortal love,

And who by birth belong to the most blessed of

divinities.

Their soul tastes continual joy amidst perpetual feasts!And you, blessed man, after having fought many a

valiant fight,

In the midst of chaste angels, you have achieved eternal

Felicity.

"Here, O Muses, let us close this hymn in honor of

Plotinos;

Cease the mazes of the dancing of the graceful choir;

This is what my golden lyre had to say of this eternally

blessed man!*

XXIII. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PLOTINOS;THE ECSTATIC TRANCES.

This oracle (pieced out of numerous quotations)

says (in some now lost lines, perhaps) that Plotinos

was kindly, affable, indulgent, gentle, such as, indeedwe knew him in personal intercourse. It also mentions

that this philosopher slept little, that his soul was pure,

ever aspiring to the divinity that he loved whole

heartedly, and that he did his utmost to liberate himself

(from terrestrial domination) "to escape the bitter

waves of this cruel life."

That is how this divine man, whoby

his

thoughtsoften aspired to the first (principle), to the divinity

superior (to intelligence), climbing the degrees in

dicated by Plato (in his Banquet), beheld the vision

of the formless divinity, which is not merely an idea,

being founded on intelligence and the whole intelligible

world. I, myself, had the blessed privilege of ap-



34 LIFE OF PLOT1NOS

preaching this divinity, uniting myself to him, when I

was about sixty-eight years of age.

That is how "the goal (that Plotinos sought to

achieve) seemed to him located near him." Indeed,

his goal, his purpose, his end was to approach the

supreme divinity, and to unite himself with the divinity.

While I dwelt with him, he had four times the bliss of

reaching that goal, not merely potentially, but by a

realand unspeakable experience.

The oracle adds that

the divinities frequently restored Plotinos to the right

path when he strayed from it, "enlightening his eyes

by radiant splendor." That is why it may truthfully

be said that Plotinos composed his works while in

contemplation of the divinities, and enjoying that

vision. "Thanks to this sight that your vigilant eyes

had of both interior and exterior things, you have,"

in the words of the oracle, "gazed at many beauties

that would hardly be granted to many of those who

study philosophy." Indeed, the contemplation of men

may be superior to human contemplation; but, com

pared to divine knowledge, if it be of any value what

ever, it, nevertheless, could not penetrate the depths

reached by the glances of the divinities.

Till here the oarcle had limited itself toindicating

what Plotinos had accomplished while enclosed in the

vesture of the body. It then proceeds to say that lie

arrived at the assembly of the divinities where dwell

friendship, delightful desire, joy, and love communingwith the divinity, where the sons of God, Minos, Rhada-

manthus, and Aeacus are established as the judges of

souls. Plotinos joined them, not to be judged, but to

enjoy their intimacy, as did the higher divinities. Thereindeed dwell Plato, Pythagoras, and the other sages

who formed the choir of immortal love. Reunited with

their families, the blessed angels spend their life "in

continued festivals andjoys," enjoying the perpetual

beatitude granted them by divine goodness.



LIFE OF PLOT1NOS 35

XXIV. CONTENTS OF THE VARIOUS ENNEADS.

This is what I have to relate of the life of Plotinos,

He had, however, asked me to arrange and revise his

works. I promised both him and his friends to work

on them. I did not judge itwjse

to arrange them in

confusion chronologically. So I imitated Apollodorus

of Athens, and Andronicus the Peripatetician, the

former collecting in ten volumes the comedies of

Epicharmus, and the latter dividing into treatises theworks of Aristotle and Theophrastus, gathering to

gether the writings that referred to the same subject.

Likewise, I grouped the fifty-four books of Plotinos into

six groups of nine (Enneads), in honor of the perfect

numbers six and nine. Into each Ennead 1 have

gathered the books that treat of the same matter, in

each case prefixing the most important ones.

The First Ennead contains the writings that treat of

Morals. They are:

1. What is an Animal? What is a Man? 53.

2. Of the Virtues, 19.

3. Of Dialectics, 20.

4. Of Happiness, 46.

5. Does Happiness (consist in Duration)?

36.6. Of Beauty, 1.

7. Of the First Good, and of the Other Goods, 54.

8. Of the Origin of Evils, 51.

9. Of (Reasonable) Suicide, 16.

Such are the topics considered in the First Ennead;which thus contains what relates to morals.

In the Second Ennead are grouped the writings thattreat of Physics, of the World, and of all that it con

tains. They are:

1. (Of the World). 40.

2. Of the (Circular) Motion (of the Heavens), 14.

3. Of the Influence of the Stars, 52.



36 LIFE OF PLOTINOS

4. (Of both Matters) (Sensible and Intelligi

ble), 12.

5. Of Potentiality and Actuality, 25.

6. Of Quality (and of Form), 17.

7. Of Mixture, Where there is Total Penetra-

tration, 37.

8. Of Vision. Why do Distant Objects SeemSmaller? 35.

9. (AgainstThose

Who saythat the

DemiurgicCreator is Evil, as well as The World It

self), Against the Gnostics, 33.

The Third Ennead, which also relates to the world,

contains the different speculations referring thereto.

Here are its component writings:

1. Of Destiny, 3.

2. Of Providence, the First, 47.3. Of Providence, the Second, 48.

4. Of the Guardian Spirit who was Allotted to

Us, 15.

5. Of Love, 50.

6. Of the Impassibility of Incorporeal Things, 26.

7. Of Eternity of Time, 45.

8. Of Nature, of

Contemplation,and of the

One,30.

9. Different Speculations, 13.

We have gathered these three Enneads into one

single body. We have assigned the book on the

Guardian Spirit Who has been Allotted to Us, in the

Third Ennead, because this is treated in a general man

ner, and because it refers to the examination of con

ditions characteristic of the production of man. For

the same reason the book on Love was assigned to the

First Ennead. The same place has been assigned to

the book on Eternity and Time, because of the observa

tions which, in this Ennead, refer to their nature.

Because of its title, we have put in the same group the

boo_k on Nature, Contemplation, and the One.



LIFE OF PLOTINOS 37

After the books that treat of the world, the Fourth

Ennead contains those that refer to the soul. They are :

1. Of the Nature of the Soul, the First, 4.

2. Of the Nature of the Soul, the Second, 21.

3. Problems about the Soul, the First, 27.

4. Problems about the Soul, the Second, 28.

5. (Problems about the Soul, the Third, or) Of

Vision, 29.

6. Of Sensation, of Memory, 41.

7. Of the Immortality of the Soul, 2.

8. Of the Descent of the Soul into the Body, 6.

9. Do not all Souls form a Single Soul? 8.

The Fourth Ennead, therefore, contains all that re

lates to Psychology.

The Fifth Ennead treats of Intelligence. Each bookin it also contains something about the principle su

perior to intelligence, and also about the intelligence

characteristic of the soul, and about Ideas.

1. About the three Principal Hypostatic Forms of

Existence, 10.

2. Of Generation, and of the Order of Things

Posterior to the First, 11.3. Of the Hypostatic Forms of Existence that Trans

mit Knowledge, and of the Superior Prin

ciple, 49.

4. How that which is Posterior to the First Pro

ceeds from it? Of the One, 7.

5. The Intelligibles are not Outside of Intelligence.

Of the Good, 32.

6. The Super-essential Principle Does Not Think.

Which is the First Thinking Principle?

Which is the Second? 24.

7. Are there Ideas of Individuals? 18.

8. Of Intelligible Beauty, 31.

9. Of Intelligence, of Ideas, and of Existence, 5.



38 LIFE OF PLOTINOS

We have gathered the Fourth and Fifth Ennead into

a single volume. Of the Sixth Ennead, we haveformed a separate volume, so that all the writings of

Plotinos might be divided into three parts, of which

the first contains three Enneads, the second two; and

the third, a single Ennead.

Here are the books that belong to the Sixth Ennead,and to the Third Volume.

1. Of the Kinds of Existence, the First, 42.2. Of the Kinds of Existence, the Second, 43.

3. Of the Kinds of Existence, the Third, 44.

4. The One Single Existence is everywhere Present

in its Entirety, First, 22.

5. The One Single Existence is everywhere Present

in its Entirety, Second, 23.

6. OfNumbers,

34

7. Of the Multitude of Ideas. Of the Good, 38.

8. Of the Will, and of the Liberty of the One, 39.

9. Of the Good, or of the One, 9.

This is how we have distributed into six Enneads the

fifty-four books of Plotinos. We have added to several

of them, Commentaries, without following any regular

order,to

satisfyour friends

whodesired to

haveex

planations of several points. We have also made

headings of each book, following the chronological

order, with the exception of the book on The Beautiful,

whose date of composition we do not know. Besides,

we have not only written up separate summaries for

each book, but also Arguments, which are contained

among the summaries.*

Now we shall try to punctuate each book, and to

correct the mistakes. Whatever else we may have to

do besides, will easily be recognized by a reading of

these books.

*The fragments of all this are probably the Principles of the

Theory of the Intelligibles, by Porphyry.



LIFE OF PLOTINOS 39

LIFE OF PLOTINOS, BY EUNAPIUS.

The philosopher Plotinos came from Egypt; to be

accurate, I will add that his home was Lycopolis. This

fact was not set down by the divine Porphyry, thoughhe himself, as he reports, was a student of Ploiinos,

and had spent a great part of his life near him.

The altars dedicated to Plotinos are not yet cold;

and not only are his books read by the learned more

than are even those of Plato, but even the multitude,

though incapable of clearly understanding his doctrine,

nevertheless conforms its conduct of life to his sug

gestions.

Porphyry has set down all the details of the life of

this philosopher, so that little can be added thereto;

besides Porphyry seems to have clearly expounded

manyof Plotinos s

writings.

LIFE OF PLOTINOS, BY SUIDAS.

Plotinos of Lycopolis, philosopher, disciple of that

Ammonius who had once been a porter, was the

teacher of Amelius, who himself had Porphyry as pupil;

the latter formed Jamblichus, and Jamblichus Sopater.Plotinos prolonged his life till the seventh year of the

reign of Gallienus. He composed fifty-four books,which are grouped in six enneads. His constitution

was weakened by the effects of the sacred disease

(epilepsy) , He wrote besides other works,



40 WORKS OF PLOTINOS [1

FIRST ENNEAD, BOOK SIXTH.

Of Beauty.

REVIEW OF BEAUTY OF DAILY LIFE.

1. Beauty chiefly affects the sense of sight. Still,

the ear perceives it also, both in the harmony of

words, and in the different kinds of music; for songsand verses are equally beautiful. On rising from the

domain of the senses to a superior region, we also

discover beauty in occupations, actions, habits, sciences

and virtues. Whether there exists a type of beautystill higher, will have to be ascertained by discussion.

PROBLEMS CONCERNING HIGHER BEAUTY

What is the cause that certain bodies seem beautiful,

that our ears listen with pleasure to rhythms judged

beautiful, and that we love the purely moral beauties ?

Does the beauty of all these objects derive from some

unique, immutable principle, or will we recognize someone principle of beauty for the body, and some other

for something else ? What then are these principles, if

there are several ? Or which is this principle, if there

is but one?

WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE BY PARTICIPATION IN

WHICH THE BODY IS BEAUTIFUL?

First, there are certain objects, such as bodies, whose

beauty exists only by participation, instead of beinginherent in the very essence of the subject. Such are

beautiful in themselves, as is, for example, virtue. In

deed, the same bodies seem beautiful at one time,

while at another they lack beauty; consequently, there



i.6]OF BEAUTY 41

is a great difference between being a body and being

beautiful. What then is the principle whose presencein a body produces beauty therein? What is that

element in the bodies which moves the spectator, and

which attracts, fixes and charms his glances? This

is the first problem to solve; for, on finding this prin

ciple, we shall use it as a means to resolve other

questions.

POLEMIC AGAINST SYMMETRY, THE STOICDEFINITION OF BEAUTY.

(The Stoics), like almost everybody, insist that

visual beauty consists in the proportion of the parts

relatively to each other and to the whole, joined to

the grace of colors. If then, as in this case, the beautyof bodies in general consists in the symmetry and just

proportion of their parts, beauty could not consist of

anything simple, and necessarily could not appear in

anything but what was compound. Only the totality

will be beautiful; the parts by themselves will possess

no beauty; they will be beautiful only by their relation

with the totality. Nevertheless, if the totality is beauti

ful, it would seem also necessary that the parts be

beautiful; for indeed beauty could never result fromthe assemblage of ugly things. Beauty must therefore

be spread among all the parts. According to the same

doctrine, the colors which, like sunlight, are beautiful,

are beautiful but simple, and those whose beauty is not

derived from proportion, will also be excluded from the

domain of beauty. According to this hypothesis, howwill gold be beautiful? The brilliant lightning in the

night, even the stars, would not be beautiful to con

template. In the sphere of sounds, also, it would be

necessary to insist that what is simple possesses no

beauty. Still, in a beautiful harmony, every sound,even when isolated, is beautiful. While preserving the

same proportions, the same countenance seems at one




time beautiful, and at another ugly. Evidently, there

is but one conclusion: namely, that proportion is not

beauty itself, but that it derives its beauty from some

superior principle. (This will appear more clearly

from further examples). Let us examine occupations

and utterances. If also their beauty depended on pro

portion, what would be the function of proportion when

considering occupations, laws, studies and sciences?

Relations of proportion could not obtain in scientific

speculations; no, nor even in the mutual agreement of

these speculations. On the other hand, even bad

things may show a certain mutual agreement and har

mony; as, for instance, were we to assert that wisdom

is softening of the brain, and that justice is a generous

folly. Here we have two revoltingly absurd state

ments, which agree perfectly, and harmonize mutually.

Further, every virtue is a soul-beauty far truer than anythat we have till now examined; yet it could not admit

of proportion, as it involves neither size nor number.

Again, granting that the soul is divided into several

faculties, who will undertake to decide which combina

tion of these faculties, or of the speculations to which

the soul devotes itself, will produce beauty? More

over (if beauty is but proportion), what beauty couldbe predicated of pure intelligence?

BEAUTY CONSISTS IN KINSHIP TO THE SOUL.

2. Returning to our first consideration, we shall

examine the nature of the element of beauty in bodies.

It is something perceivable at the very first glance,

something which the soul recognizes as kindred, and

sympathetic to her own nature, which she welcomes

and assimilates. But as soon as she meets an ugly

object, she recoils, repudiates it, and rejects it as some

thing foreign, towards which her real nature feels

antipathy. That is the reason why the soul, being such

as it is, namely, of an essence superior to all other



i.6]OF BEAUTY 43

beings, when she perceives an object kindred to her

own nature, or which reveals only some traces of it,

rejoices, is transported, compares this object with her

own nature, thinks of herself, and of her intimate being

as it would be impossible to fail to perceive this re

semblance.

BEAUTY CONSISTS IN PARTICIPATION IN A FORM.

How can both sensible and intelligible objects be

beautiful? Because, as we said, sensible objects par

ticipate in a form. While a shapeless object, by nature

capable of receiving shape (physical) and form (in

telligible), remains without reason or form, it is ugly.

That which remains completely foreign to all divine

reason (a reason proceeding from the universal Soul),

is absolute ugliness. Any object should be considered

ugly which is not entirely molded by informing reason,the matter, not being able to receive perfectly the

form (which the Soul gives it). On joining matter,

form co-ordinates the different parts which are to com

pose unity, combines them, and by their harmony produces something which is a unit. Since (form) is one,

that which it fashions will also have to be one, as far

as acomposite object

can be one. When such an

object has arrived at unity, beauty resides init, and it

communicates itself to the parts as well as to the whole.

When it meets a whole, the parts of which are per

fectly similar, it interpenetrates it evenly. Thus it

would show itself now in an entire building, then in a

single stone, later in art-products as well as in the

works of nature. Thus bodies become beautiful by

communion with (or, participation in) a reason de

scending upon it from the divine (universal Soul).

THE SOUL APPRECIATES THE BEAUTIFUL BY ANAESTHETIC SENSE.

3. The soul appreciates beauty by an especially

ordered faculty, whose sole function it is to appreciate




all that concerns beauty, even when the other faculties

take partin

this judgment. Often the soul makes her(aesthetic) decisions by comparison with the form

of the beautiful which is within her, using this form as

a standard by which to judge. But what agreementcan anything corporeal have with what is incorporeal?For example, how can an architect judge a building

placed before him as beautiful, by comparing it with

the Idea which he has within himself? The only ex

planation can be that, on abstracting the stones, the

exterior object is nothing but the interior form, no

doubt divided within the extent of the matter, but still

one, though manifested in the manifold? When the

senses perceive in an object the form which combines,

unites and dominates a substance which lacks shape,

and therefore is of a contrary nature; and if they

also perceive a shape which distinguishes itself fromthe other shapes by its elegance, then the soul, uniting

these multiple elements, fuses them, comparing them

to the indivisible form which she bears withiri herself,

then she pronounces their agreement, kinship and har

mony with that interior type.

INSTANCES OF CORRESPONDENCE OF OUTER

SENSE BEAUTY WITH ITS IDEA.

Thus a worthy man, perceiving in a youth the

character of virtue, is agreeably impressed, because he

observes that the youth harmonizes with the true type

of virtue which he bears within himself. Thus also the

beauty of color, though simple in form, reduces under

its sway that obscurity of matter, by the presence of

the light, which is something incorporeal, a reason, anda form. Likewise, fire surpasses all other bodies in

beauty, because it stands to all other elements in the

relation of a form; it occupies the highest regions;* it

is the subtlest of bodies because it most approaches the

*See ii. 1.



i.6]OF BEAUTY 45

incorporeal beings; without permitting itself to be pene

trated by other bodies, it penetrates them all; without

itself cooling, it communicates to them its heat; by its

own essence it possesses color, and communicates it to

others; it shines and coruscates, because it is a form.

The body in which it does not dominate, shows but a

discolored hue, and ceases being beautiful, merely be

cause it does not participate in the whole form of color.

Once more, thus do the hidden harmonies of soundproduce audible harmonies, and also yield to the soul

the idea of beauty, though showing it in another order

of things. Audible harmonies can be expressed in

numbers; not indeed in any kind of numbers, but onlyin such as can serve to produce form, and to make it

dominate.

TRANSITION FROM SENSE BEAUTY TO INTELLECTUAL BEAUTY.

So much then for sense-beauties which, descendingon matter like images and shadows, beautify it and

thereby compel our admiration. 4. Now we shall

leave the senses in their lower sphere, and we shall rise

to the contemplation of the beauties of a superior order,

of which the senses have no intuition, but which thesoul perceives and expresses.

INTERIOR BEAUTIES COULD NOT BE APPRECIATEDWITHOUT AN INTERIOR MODEL.

Just as we could not have spoken of sense-beauties

if we had never seen them, nor recognized them as

such, if,in respect to them, we had been similar to

persons born blind, likewise we would not know enoughto say anything about the beauty either of the arts or

sciences, or of anything of the kind, if we were not

already in possession of this kind of beauty; nor of the

splendor of virtue, if we had not contemplated the

("golden) face of Justice," and of temperance, before

whose splendor the morning and evening stars grow pale.




MORAL BEAUTIES MORE DELIGHTFUL THAN SENSE-

BEAUTIES.To see these beauties, they must be contem

plated by the faculty our soul has received; then, while

contemplating them, we shall experience far more

pleasure, astonishment and admiration, than in con

templation of the sense-beauties, because we will have

the intuition of veritable beauties. The sentiments in

spired by beauty are admiration, a gentle charm, desire,love, and a pleasurable impulse.

THEY WHO FEEL THESE SENTIMENTS MOSTKEENLY ARE CALLED LOVERS.

Such are the sentiments for invisible beauties which

should be felt, and indeed are experienced by all souls,

but especially by the most loving. In the presence of

beautiful bodies, all indeed see them; but not all are

equally moved. Those who are most moved are

designated "lovers."*

THE CAUSE OF THESE EMOTIONS IS THE INVISIBLESOUL.

5. Let us now propound a question about experi

encesto these men who feel love for

incorporealbeauties. What do you feel in presence of the noble

occupations, the good morals, the habits of temper

ance, and in general of virtuous acts and sentiments,

and of all that constitutes the beauty of souls? Whatdo you feel when you contemplate your inner beauty?What is the source of your ecstasies, or your enthusi

asms? Whence come your desires to unite yourselves

to your real selves, and to refresh yourselves by retire

ment from your bodies? Such indeed are the experiences of those who love genuinely. What then is the

object which causes these, your emotions ? It is neither

a figure, nor a color, nor any size; it is that (colorless)

*See i. 3.



i.6] OF BEAUTY 47

invisible soul, which possesses a wisdom equally in

visible; this soul in which may be seen shining the

splendor of all the virtues, when one discovers in one

self, or contemplates in others, the greatness of char

acter, the justice of the heart, the pure temperance, the

imposing countenance of valor, dignity and modesty,

proceeding alone firmly, calmly, and imperturbably;and above all, intelligence, resembling the divinity, by

its brilliant light. What is the reason that we declarethese objects to be beautiful, when we are transportedwith admiration and love for them? They exist, theymanifest themselves, and whoever beholds them will

never be able to restrain himself from confessing themto be veritable beings. Now what are these genuine

beings? They are beautiful.

LOVE OF BEAUTY EXPLAINED BY AVERSION FOROPPOSITE.

But reason is not yet satisfied; reason wonders whythese veritable beings give the soul which experiencesthem the property of exciting love, from which proceeds this halo of light which, so to speak, crowns all

virtues. Consider the things contrary to these beautiful

objects, and with them compare what may be ugly in

the soul. If we can discover of what ugliness consists,

and what is its cause, we shall have achieved an im

portant element of the solution we are seeking. Let

us picture to ourselves an ugly soul; she will be given

up to intemperance; and be unjust, abandoned to a host

of passions, troubled, full of fears caused by her

cowardliness,and of

envy byher

degradation;she will

be longing only for vile and perishable things; she will

be entirely depraved, will love nothing but impurewishes, will have no life but the sensual, and will take

pleasure in her turpitude. Would we not explain such

a state by saying that under the very mask of beauty

turpitude had invaded this soul, brutalized her, soiled



;48 WORKS OF PLOTINOS [1

her with all kinds of vices, rendering her incapable of

a pure life, and pure sentiments, and had reduced herto an existence obscure, infected with evil, poisoned

by lethal germs; that it had hindered her from contem

plating anything she should, forcing her to remain

solitary, because it misled her out from herself towards

inferior and gloomy regions ? The soul fallen into this

state of impurity, seized with an irresistible inclination

towards thethings

ofsense,

absorbedby

her intercourse

with the body, sunk into matter, and having even re

ceived it within herself, has changed formby

her ad

mixture with an inferior nature. Not otherwise would

be a man fallen into slimy mud, who no longer would

present to view his primitive beauty, and would exhibit

only the appearance of the mud that had defiled him;his ugliness would be derived from something foreign ;

and to recover his pristine beauty he would have to

wash off his defilement, and by purification be restored

to what he once was.

UGLINESS IS ONLY A FOREIGN ACCRETION.

We have the right to say that the soul becomes ugly

by mingling with the body, confusing herself with it,

by inclining herself towards it. For a soul, ugliness

consists in being impure, no longer unmingled, like goldtarnished by particles of earth. As soon as this dross

is removed, and nothing but gold remains, then again

it is beautiful, because separated from every foreign

body, and is restored to its unique nature. Likewise

the soul, released from the passions begotten by her

intercourse with the body when she yields herself too

much to it, delivered from exterior impressions, puri

fied from the blemishes contracted from her alliance

with the body that is, reduced to herself, she lays

aside that ugliness which is derived from a nature

foreign to her.



i.6]OF BEAUTY 49

VIRTUES ARE ONLY PURIFICATIONS.

6. Thus, according to the ancient (Platonic or Em-

pedoclean) maxim, "courage, temperance, all the

virtues, nay, even prudence, are but purifications."

The mysteries were therefore wise in teaching that the

man who has not been purified will, in hell, dwell at

the bottom of a swamp; for everything that is not pure,

because of its very perversity, delights in mud, just as

we see the impure swine wallow in the mud with delight.

And indeed, what would real temperance consist of, if

it be not to avoid attaching oneself to the pleasures of

the body, and to flee from them as,hnpure, and as only

proper for an impure being? What else is courage,

unless no longer to fear death, which is mere separation

of the soul from the body? Whoever therefore is will

ing to withdraw from the body could surely not feardeath. Magnanimity is nothing but scorn of things

here below. Last, prudence is the thought which, de

tached from the earth, raises the soul to the intelligible

world. The purified soul, therefore, becomes a form,a reason, an incorporeal and intellectual essence; she

belongs entirely to the divinity, in whom, resides the

source of the beautiful, and of all the qualities which

have affinity with it.

THE SOUL S WELFARE IS TO RESEMBLE THEDIVINITY.

Restored to intelligence, the soul sees her own beauty

increase; indeed, her own beauty consists of the intel

ligence with its ideas; only when united to intelligence

is the soul really isolated from all the remainder. Thatis the reason that it is right to say that "the soul s

welfare and beauty lie in assimilating herself to the

divinity," because it is the principle of beauty and of

the essences; or rather, being is beauty, while the other

nature (non-being, matter), is ugliness. This is the

First Evil, evil in itself, just as that one (the First




Principle) is the good and the beautiful; ior good and

beauty are identical. Consequently, beauty or good,and evil or ugliness, are to be studied by the same

methods. The first rank is to be assigned to beauty,

which is identical with the good, and from which is de

rived the intelligence which is beautiful by itself. The

soul is beautiful by intelligence, then, the other things,

like actions, and studies, are beautiful by the soul which

gives

them a form. It is still the soul which beautifies

the bodies to which is ascribed this perfection ; being a

divine essence, and participating in beauty, when she

seizes an object, or subjects it to her dominion, she

gives to it the beauty that the nature of this object

enables it to receive.

APPROACH TO THE GOOD CONSISTS IN SIMPLIFI

CATION.We must still ascend to the Good to which every

soul aspires. Whoever has seen it knows what I still

have to say, and knows the beauty of the Good. In

deed, the Good is desirable for its own sake; it is the

goal of our desires. To attain it, we have to ascend

to the higher regions, turn towards them, and lay aside

the garment which we put on when descending herebelow; just as, in the (Eleusynian, or Isiac) mysteries,

those who are admitted to penetrate into the recesses

of the sanctuary, after having purified themselves, lay

aside every garment, and advance stark naked.

THE SUPREME PURPOSE OF LIFE IS THEECSTATICAL VISION OF GOD.

7. Thus, in her ascension towards divinity, the soul

advances until, having risen above everything that is

foreign to her, she alone with Him who is alone, be

holds, in all His simplicity and purity, Him from whomall depends, to whom all aspires, from whom every-



i.6]OF BEAUTY Si

thing draws its existence, life and thought. He who

beholds him is overwhelmed with love; with ardor

desiring to unite himself with Him, entranced with

ecstasy. Men who have not yet seen Him desire Himas the Good; those who have, admire Him as sovereign

beauty, struck simultaneously with stupor and pleasure,

thrilling in a painless orgiasm, loving with a genuine

emotion, with an ardor without equal, scorning all

other affections, and disdaining those things whichformerly they characterized as beautiful. This is the

experience of those to whom divinities and guardianshave appeared; they reck no longer of the beauty of

other bodies. Imagine, if you can, the experiences of

those who behold Beauty itself, the pure Beauty, which,

because of its very purity, is fleshless and bodiless,

outside of earth and heaven. All these things, indeed

are contingent and composite, they are not principles,

they are derived from Him. What beauty could one

still wish to see after having arrived at vision of Himwho gives perfection to all beings, though himself re

mains unmoved, without receiving anything; after find

ing rest in this contemplation, and enjoying it by be

coming assimilated to Him? Being supreme beauty,

and the first beauty, He beautifies those who loveHim, and thereby they become worthy of love. This

is the great, the supreme goal of souls; this is the goalwhich arouses all their efforts, if they do not wish to

be disinherited of that sublime contemplation the en

joyment of which confers blessedness, and privation of

which is the greatest of earthly misfortunes. Real mis

fortune is not to lack beautiful colors, nor beautiful

bodies, nor power, nor domination, nor royalty. It

is quite sufficient to see oneself excluded from no

more than possession of beauty. This possession is

precious enough to render worthless domination of a

kingdom, if not of the whole earth, of the sea, or even

of the heavens if indeed it were possible, while




abandoning and scorning all that (natural beauty), to

succeed in contemplating beauty face to face.

THE METHOD TO ACHIEVE ECSTASY IS TO CLOSETHE EYES OF THE BODY.

8. How shall we start, and later arrive at the

contemplation of this ineffable beauty which, like

the divinity in the mysteries, remains hidden in the

recesses of asanctuary,

and does not show itself out

side, where it might be perceived by the profane ? Wemust advance into this sanctuary, penetrating into it,

if we have the strength to do so, closing our eyes to the

spectacle of terrestrial things, without throwing a back

ward glance on the bodies whose graces formerlycharmed us. If we do still see corporeal beauties, wemust no longer rush at them, but, knowing that they

are only images, traces and adumbrations of a superior

principle, we will flee from them, to approach Him of

whom they are merely the reflections. Whoever would

let himeslf be misled by the pursuit of those vain

shadows, mistaking them for realities, would grasp onlyan image as fugitive as the fluctuating form reflected

by the waters, and would resemble that senseless

(Narcissus) who, wishingto

graspthat

image himself,according to the fable, disappeared, carried away bythe current. Likewise he would wish to embrace cor

poreal beauties, and not release them, would plunge,not his body, but his soul into the gloomy abysses, so

repugnant to intelligence; he would be condemned to

total blindness; and on this earth, as well as in hell,

he would see naught but mendacious shades.

HOW TO FLY TO OUR FATHERLAND.

This indeed is the occasion to quote (from Homer)with peculiar force, "Let us fly unto our dear father

land!" But how shall we fly? How escape from

here? is the question Ulysses asks himself in that



i.6]OF BEAUTY 53

allegory which representshim

tryingto

escapefrom

the magic sway of Circe or Calypso, where neither the

pleasure of the eyes, nor the view of fleshly beautywere able to hold him in those enchanted places. Our

fatherland is the region whence we descend here below.

It is there that dwells our Father. But how shall wereturn thither? What means shall be employed to

return us thither? Not our feet, indeed; all they could

do would be to move us from one place of the earth

to another. Neither is it a chariot, nor ship which need

be prepared. All these vain helps must be left aside,

and not even considered. We must close the eyes of

the body, to open another vision, which indeed all pos

sess, but very few employ.

HOW TO TRAIN THIS INTERIOR VISION.

9. But how shall we train this interior vision? At

the moment of its (first) awakening, it cannot contem

plate beauties too dazzling. Your soul must then first

be accustomed to contemplate the noblest occupations

of man, and then the beautiful deeds, not indeed those

performed by artists, but those (good deeds) done byvirtuous men. Later contemplate the souls of those

who perform these beautiful actions. Nevertheless,

how will you discover the beauty which their excellent

soul possesses? Withdraw within yourself, and ex

amine yourself. If you do not yet therein discover

beauty, do as the artist, who cuts off, polishes, purifies

until he has adorned his statue with all the marks of

beauty. Remove from your soul, therefore, all that is

superfluous, straighten out all that is crooked, purifyand illuminate what is obscure, and do not cease per

fecting your statue until the divine resplendence of

virtue shines forth upon your sight, until you see

temperance in its holy purity seated in your breast.

When you shall have acquired this perfection; when

you will see it in yourself; when you will purely dwell




withinyourself;

whenyou

will cease to meet within

yourself any obstacle to unity; when nothing foreign

will any more, by its admixture, alter the simplicity of

your interior essence; when within your whole being

you will be a veritable light, immeasurable in size,

uncircumscribed by any figure within narrow bound

aries, unincreasable because reaching out to infinity,

and entirely incommensurable because it transcends all

measure and quantity; when you shall have becomesuch, then, having become sight itself, you may have

confidence in yourself, for you will no longer need

any guide. Then must you observe carefully, for it is

only by the eye that then will open itself within youthat you will be able to perceive supreme Beauty. But

if you try to fix on it an eye soiled by vice, an eye that

is

impure,

or weak, so as not to be able to supportthe splendor of so brilliant an object, that eye will see

nothing, not even if it were shown a sight easy to grasp.

The organ of vision will first have to be rendered

analogous and similar to the object it is to contemplate.Never would the eye have seen the sun unless first it

had assumed its form; likewise, the soul could never

see beauty, unless she herself first became beautiful.

To obtain the view of the beautiful, and of the divinity,

every man must begin by rendering himself beautiful

and divine.

^THE LANDMARKS OF THE PATH TO ECSTASY.

Thus he will first rise to intelligence, and he will

there contemplate beauty, and declare that all this

beautyresides in the Ideas. Indeed, in them

everythingis beautiful, because they are the daughters and the

very essence of Intelligence.

Above intelligence, he will meet Him whom we call

the nature of the Good, and who causes beauty to

radiate around Him; so that, to repeat, the first thing

that is met is beauty. If a distinction is to be established



.

i.6] OF BEAUTY 55

among the intelligibles, we might say that intelligible

beauty is the locus of ideas, and that the Good, whichis located above the Beautiful, is its source and prin

ciple. If, however, we desire to locate the Good and

the Beautiful within one single principle, we might

regard this one principle first as Good, and only after

wards, as Beauty.

REFERENCES.

Page 40, line 4, Equally Beautiful, Phaedrus p. 250, Gary 63-65;

Hippias Major, 295, Gary 44; Philebus p. 17, Gary 20, 21.

Page 41, line 11, Stoic definition, Cicero, Tusculans, iv. 13.

Page 44, line 30, Obscurity of Matter, Timaeus, p. 31, Gary 11;

Philebus, p. 29, Gary 52.

Page 45, line 22, Superior Order, Banquet 210, Gary 34;

Timaeus, p. 31, Gary 11.

Page 45,line

35,Golden Face of

Justice, Athenaeus, Deipnoso-phistae, xii. 546.

Page 46, line 10, Pleasurable Impulse, Banquet, p. 191, Gary 17,

18; Cratylos, p. 420, Gary 78-80.

Page 47, line 5, Justice of the Heart, Banquet, p. 209, Gary 33;

Republic, iii. 402, Gary 12.

Page 48, line 23, Ugliness, Banquet, p. 215-217, Gary 39, 40;

Philebus, p. 66, Gary 158 159.

Page 49, line 4, Purifications, Phaedo, p. 69, Gary 37.

Page 49, line 32, Assimilating to Divinity, Republic x. p. 613,

Gary 12.

Page 50, line 1, Good and Beautiful, Timaeus, p. 35, Gary 12.

Page 50, line 5, Identical with Good, Philebus, p. 64, Gary153-155; First Alcibiades, p. 115, Gary 23, 24.

Page 51, line 1, 2, He who Beholds, Phaedrus, p. 278, Gary 145.

Page 51, line 8, Ardor without Equal; line 15, Very Purity;

Banquet, p. 210, 211; Gary 34, 35.

Page 51, line 29, Confers Blessedness. Phaedrus, p. 250, Gary 64.

Page 53, line 16, Interior Vision, Republic, x., p. 533, Gary 13.

Page 53, line 34, Temporance Seated, Phaedrus, p. 279, Gary 147.

Page 54, line 19, Organ of Vision, Timaeus, p. 45, Gary 19.

Page 54, line 23, Assumed its form, Republic, vi., p. 508, Gary 19.

Page 54, line 29, Rise to Intelligence Philebus, p, 64, Gary 153-155.




FOURTH ENNEAD, BOOK SEVEN.

Of the Immortality of the Soul: Polemic Against

Materialism.

IS THE SOUL IMMORTAL?

1. Are we immortal, or does all of us die? (Another possibility would be that) of the two parts of

which we are composed, the one might be fated to be

dissolved and perish, while the other, that constitutes

our very personality, might subsist perpetually. These

problems must be solved by a study of our nature.

THE BODY AS THE INSTRUMENT OF THE SOUL.

Man is not a simple being; he contains a soul and a

body, which is united to this soul, either as tool, or in

some other manner.* This is how we must distinguish

the soul from the body, and determine the nature and

manner of existence ("being") of each of them.

THE BODY IS COMPOSITE, AND THEREFOREPERISHABLE.

As the nature of the body is composite, reason con

vinces us that it cannot last perpetually, and our senses

show it to us dissolved, destroyed, and decayed, be

cause the elements that compose it return to join the

elements of the same nature, altering, destroying themand each other, especially when this chaos is abandonedto the soul, which alone keeps her parts combined.

Even if a body were taken alone, it would not be a

unity; it may be analyzed into form and matter, prin-*As pilot, perhaps, iv. 3. 21.



iv.7] OF IMMORTALITY OF SOUL 57

ciples that are necessary to the constitution of all

bodies, even of those that are simple.* Besides, as theycontain extension, the bodies can be cut, divided into

infinitely small parts, and thus perish.f Therefore if

our body is a part of ourselves,^ not all of us is im

mortal; if the body is only the instrument of the soul,

as the body is given to the soul only for a definite

period, it still is by nature perishable.

THE SOUL IS THE INDIVIDUALITY, AS ITS FORM,AND AS A SKILLED WORKMAN.

The soul, which is the principal part of man, and

which constitutes man himself, should bear to the bodythe relation of form to matter, or of a workman to his

tool;|| in both cases the soul is the man himself.

IF THE SOUL IS INCORPOREAL, WE MUST STUDYINCORPOREALITY.

2. What then is the nature of the soul? If she is a

body, she can be decomposed, as every body is a com

posite. If, on the contrary, she is not a body, if hers

is a different nature, the latter must be examined;either in the same way that we have examined the

body, or in some other way.

A. THE SOUL IS NOT CORPOREAL (AS THE STOICS

THOUGHT).

(a.) (Neither a material molecule, nor a material

aggregation of material atoms could possess life and in

telligence.) First, let us consider the nature of this

alleged soul-body. As everysoul

necessarily possesseslife, and as the body, considered as being the soul, must

obtain at least two molecules, if not more (there are

three possibilities) : either only one of them possesses

life, or all of them possess it, or none of them. If one

*See ii.f4. 6. fSee ii. 7. 1. tSee i. 1. 10.

See i. 9. 8. 10.1 1See iv. 3. 20, 21.




molecule alone possesses life, it alone will be the soul.

Of what nature will be that molecule supposed to possess life by itself? Will it be water (Hippo), air

(Anaximenes, Archelaus, and Diogenes), earth, or fire

(Heraclitus, Stobaeus?*) But those are elements that

are inanimate by themselves, and which, even when

they are animated, possess but a borrowed life. Still

there is no other kind of body. Even those (philoso

phers, like the Pythagoreans) who posited elementsother (than water, air, earth and fire) still considered

them to be bodies, and not souls, not even attributing

souls to them. The theory that life results from the

union of molecules of which, nevertheless, none byitself possesses life, is an absurd hypothesis. If further

any molecule possesses life, then a single one would be

sufficient.

NEITHER MIXTURE NOR ITS PRINCIPLE WILLEXPLAIN LIFE AS A BODY.

The most irrational theory of all is that an aggre

gation of molecules should produce life, that elements

without intelligence should beget intelligence. Others

(like Alexander of Aphrodisia) insist that to producelife these elements must be mingled in a certain manner.

That would, however, imply (as thought Gallen and

Hippocrates,f) the existence of a principle which produces order, and which should be the cause of mixture

or, temperament,^ and that should alone deserve beingconsidered as soul. No simple bodies could exist, muchless composite bodies, unless there was a soul in the

universe; for it is (seminal) reason which, in addingitself to matter, produces body. But surely a (seminal)reason could proceed from nowhere except a soul.

*Ecl. Phys., p. 797, Heeren and Aristotle, de Anima, i. 2.

fSee Nemesius, de Nat. Horn. 2.

JSee ii. 7, 1.

See ii. 7, 3.




NO ATOMIC AGGREGATION COULD PRODUCE A

SELF-HARMONIZING UNITY.3. (b.) (No aggregation of atoms could form a

whole that would be one and sympathetic with itself.)

Others, on the contrary, insist that the soul is con

stituted by the union of atoms or indivisibles (as thought

Leucippus, Democritus and Epicurus.*) To refute this

error, we have to examine the nature of sympathy (or

communityof affection, a Stoic characteristic of a

living being,f) and juxtaposition.$ On the one hand

an aggregation of corporeal molecules which are in

capable of being united, and which do not feel cannot

form a single sympathetic whole such as is the soul,

which is sympathetic with herself. On the other hand,

how could a body or extension be constituted by (a

juxtaposition of) atoms?

SOUL IS A SIMPLE SUBSTANCE, WHILE EVERY BODYIS COMPOSED OF MATTER AND FORM.

(c.) (Every body is a composite of matter and form,

while the soul is a simple substance.) Inasmuch as mat

ter possesses no qudity, the matter of no simple bodywill be said to possess life in itself. That which impartslife to it must then be its form. If form is a

"being,"

the soul cannot simultaneously be matter and form; it

will be only matter or form. Consequently, the soul will

not be the body, since the body is not constituted bymatter exclusively, as could be proved analytically, if

necessary.

IF SOUL IS ONLY AN AFFECTION OF MATTER,WHENCE THAT AFFECTION?

(d.) (The soul is not a simple manner of being of

matter, because matter could not give itself a form.)Some Stoics might deny that form was a

"being,"as

serting the soul to be a mere affection (or, manner of

*Stob. Eel Phys. 797. fSee ii. 3, 5.

JSee ii. 7, 1. ii. 4, 7.




being) of matter.* From whence then did matter

acquire this affection and animating life ? Surely matteritself could not endow itself with a form and a soul.

That which endows matter or any body with life must

then be some principle alien and superior to corporeal

nature.

NO BODY COULD SUBSIST WITHOUT THE POWEROF THE UNIVERSAL SOUL.

(e.) (No body could subsist without the power of the

universal soul.) Besides no body could subsist without

the power of the universal Soul (from Numeniusf),

Every body, indeed, is in a perpetual flow and movement (as thought Heraclitus, in Plato, Cratylus), and

the world would soon perish if it contained nothing but

bodies, even if some one of them were to be called

soul; for such a soul, being composed of the samematter as the other bodies, would undergo the same

fate that they do; or rather, there would not even be

any body, everything would remain in the condition of

shapeless matter, since there would exist no principle to

fashion it. Why, there would not even be any matter,

and the universe would be annihilated to nothingness, if

the care of keeping its parts united were entrusted tosome body which would have nothing but the nameof soul, as for instance, to air, or a breath without

cohesion,J which could not be one, by itself. As

all bodies are divisible, if the universe depended on

a body, it would be deprived of intelligence and

given up to chance. How, indeed, could there

be any order in a spirit which itself would need

to receive order from a soul? How could this spirit

contain reason and intelligence? On the hypothesis of

the existence of the soul, all these elements serve to

constitute the body of the world, and of every animal,

*See iv. 7, 8. fEuseb., Prep. Ev. xv. 17. /

JCicero, Tusculans, i. 9. p. 54, Cousin.




because all different bodies together work for the end

of all; but without the soul, there is no order, and even

nothing exists any more.

IF THE SOUL IS NOT SIMPLE MATTER, SHE MUST BEA SUBSTANTIAL FORM.

4. (f) (If the soul is anything but simple matter, she

must be constituted by a substantial form.) Those who

claim that the soul is a body are, by the very force ofthe truth, forced to recognize the existence, before

and above them, of a form proper to the soul; for they

Acknowledge the existence of an intelligent spirit, and

an intellectual fire (as do the Stoics, following in the

footsteps of Heraclitus, Stobaeus*). According to them,it seems that, without spirit or fire, there canot be any

superior nature in the order of beings, and that the soul

needs a location where she may be built up. On the

contrary, it is bodies alone that need to be built up on

something, and indeed, they are founded on the powersof the soul. If really we dp

believe that the soul and

life are no more than a spirit, why add the qualifica

tion "of a certain characteristic, ^ a meaningless term

employed when forced to admit an active nature su

perior to that of bodies. As there are thousands of in

animate spirits, not every spirit is a soul. If only that

spirit is a soul which possesses that"special character

istic,"this

"specialcharacteristic" and this "manner of

being"will either be something real, or will be nothing.

If they are nothing, there will be nothing real but spirit,

and this alleged "manner ofbeing"

is nothing morethan a word. In that

system, therefore, nothingbut

matter really exists. God, the soul, and all other thingsare no more than a word; the body alone really sub

sists. If, on the contrary, that "manner ofbeing"

is

something real, if it is anything else than substrate or

*Ecl. Phys. 797, Cicero, de Nat. Deor. iii. 14.

fSee ii. 4, 1. pos echon.* of Dikearchus and Aristoxenus.




matter, if it resides in matter without being material or

composed of matter, it must then be a nature different

from the body, namely, a reason (by a pun).*

THE BODY EXERTS A UNIFORM ACTION, WHILE THESOUL EXERTS A VARIED ONE.

(g.) (The body exerts an uniform action, while the

soul exerts a very diverse action.) The following con

siderations further demonstrate theimpossibility

of the

soul being a body. A body must be hot or cold, hard

or soft, liquid or solid, black or white, or qualities dif

fering according to its nature. If it is only hot or cold,

light or heavy, black or white, it communicates its

only quality to what comes close to it; for fire* could

not cool, nor ice heat. Nevertheless, the soul producesnot only different effects in different animals, but con

trary effects even in the same being; she makes certain

things solid, dense, black, light, and certain others

liquid, sparse, white, or heavy. According to the differ

ent quality of the body, and according to its color, she

should produce but a single effect; nevertheless, she

exerts a very diverse action.

THREE MORE PROOFS OF THE INCORPOREITY OFTHE SOUL.

)

5. (h.) (The body has but a single kind of motion?while the soul has different ones.) If the soul is a

body, how does it happen that she has different kinds

of motion instead of a single one, as is the case with

the body? Will these movements be explained byvoluntary determinations, and by (seminal) reasons?

In this case neither the voluntary determinations, northese reasons, which differ from each other, can belongto a single and simple body; such a body does not

participate in any particular reason except by the

principle that made it hot or cold.

*See ii. 6, on logos/




BODIES CAN LOSE PARTS, NOT SO THE SOUL.

(i.) (Souls cannot, as do bodies, lose or gain parts,

ever remaining identical.) The body has the faculty

of making its organs grow within a definite time and in

fixed proportions. From where could the soul derive

them? Its function is to grow, not to cause growth,unless the principle of growth be comprehended within

its material mass. If the soul that; makes the body

grow was herself a body, she should, on uniting withmolecules of a nature similar to hers, develop a growth

proportional to that of the organs. In this case, the

molecules that will come to add themselves to the soul

will be either animate or inanimate; if they are animate,

how could they have become such, and from whomwill they have received that characteristic? If theyare not animate, how will they become such, and howwill agreement between them and the first soul arise?

How will they form but a single unity with her, and howwill they agree with her? Will they not constitute a

soul that will remain foreign to the former, who will

not possess her requirements of knowledge? This

aggregation of molecules that would thus be called soul

will resemble the aggregation of molecules that form

our body. She would lose parts, she would acquire newones; she will not be identical. But if we had a soul that

was not identical, memory and self-consciousness of

our own faculties would be impossible.

THE SOUL IS EVERYWHERE ENTIRE; THAT IS NOTTHE CASE WITH THE BODY.

(j.) (The soul, beingone and

simple,is

everywhereentire, and has parts that are identical to the whole;this is not the case with the body.) If the soul is a

body, she will have parts that are not identical with

the whole, as every body is by nature divisible. If then

the soul has a definite magnitude of which she cannot

lose anything without ceasing to be a soul, she will by



64 WORKS OE PLQTINOS [2

losing her parts, changeher

nature,as

happensto

everyquantity. If, on losing some part of its magnitude, a

body, notwithstanding, remains identical in respect to

quality, it does not nevertheless become different from

what it was, in respect to quantity, and it remains iden

tical only in respect to quality, which differs from quan

tity. What shall we answer to those who insist that

the soul is a body? Will they say that, in the same

body, each part possesses the same quality as the

total soul, and that the case is similar with the part of

a part? Then quantity is no longer essential to the

nature of the soul; which contradicts the hypothesis that

the soul needed to possess a definite! magnitude. Be

sides the soul is everywhere entire; now it is impossibletor a body to be entire in several places simultaneously,

or have parts identical to the whole. If we refuse thename of soul to each part,, the soul is then composedof inanimate parts. Besides, if the soul is a definite

magnitude, she cannot increase or diminish without

ceasijng to be a soul; but it often happens that from a

single conception or from a single germ are born twoor more beings, as is seen in certain animals in whomthe germs divide;* in this case, each part is equal to

the whole. However superficially considered, this fact

demonstrates that the principle in which the part is

equal to the whole is essentially superior to quantity,and must necessarily lack any kind of quantity. Onthis condition alone can the soul remain identical whenthe body loses its quantity, because she has need of no

mass, no quantity, and because her essence is of an en

tirely different nature. The soul and the (seminal)reasons therefore possess no extension.

THE BODY COULD NOT POSSESS SENSATION.

6. (k.) (The body could not possess either sensa

tion, thought, or virtue.) If the soul were a body, she

*See v. 7, 3.




would not possess either sensation, thought, science,

virtue, nor any of the perfections that render her morebeautiful. Here follows the proof.

IMPOSSIBILITY FOR THE BODY TO HAVESENSATION.

The subject that perceives a sense-object must itself

be single, and grasp this object in its totality, by one

and the same power. This happens when by severalorgans we perceive several qualities of a single object,

or when, by a single organ, we embrace a single com

plex object in its totality, as, for instance, a face. It is

not one principle that sees the face, and another one

that sees the eyes; it is the "sameprinciple" which em

braces everything at once. Doubtless we do receive a

sense-impression by the eyes, and another by the ears;

but both of them must end in some single principle.

How, indeed, could any decision be reached about the

difference of sense-impressions unless they all con

verged toward the same principle? The latter is like

a centre, and the individual sensations are like radii

which from the circumference radiate towards the cen

tre of a circle. This central principle is essentially single.

If it was divisible, and if sense-impressions were directedtowards two points at a distance from each other, such

as the extremities of the same line, they would either

still converge towards one and the same point, as, for

instance, the middle (of the line), or one part would

feel one thing, and another something else. It would

be absolutely as if I felt one thing, and you felt another,when

placedin the

presenceof one and the same

thing(as thought Aristotle, de Anima*). Facts, therefore,

demonstrate that sensations centre in one and the same

principle; as visible images are centred in the pupil of

the eye; otherwise how could we, through the pupil,

see the greatest objects? So much the more, there-

*iii. 2.




fore, must the sensations that centre in the (Stoic)

"directing principle"* resemble indivisible intuitions

and be perceived by an indivisible principle. If the latter

possessed extension, it could, like the sense-object, be

divided; each of its parts would thus perceive one of

the parts of the sense-object, and nothing within us

would grasp the object in its totality. The subject that

perceives must then be entirely one; otherwise, how

could it be divided? In that case it could not be madeto coincide with the sense-object, as two equal figures

superimposed on each other, because the directing prin

ciple does not have an extension equal to that of the

sense-object. How then will we carry out the division ?

Must the subject that feels contain as many! parts as

there are in the sense-object? Will each part of the

soul, in its turn, feel

byits own

parts,

or will

(wedecide

that) the parts of parts will not feel? Neither is that

likely. If, on the other hand, each part feels the entire

object, and if each magnitude is divisible to infinity, the

result is that, for a single object, there will be an in

finity of sensations in each part of the soul; and, so

much the more, an infinity of images in the principle

that directs us. (This, however, is the opposite of the

actual state of affairs.)

AGAINST THE STOICS, SENSATIONS ARE NOTIMPRESSIONS OF A SEAL ON WAX.

Besides, if the principle that feels were corporeal, it

could feel only so long as exterior objects produced in

the blood or in the air some impression similar to that

of a seal on wax.f If they impressed their

imageson

wet substances, as is no doubt supposed, these impressions would become confused as images in water, and

memory would not occur. If, however, these impressions persisted, they would either form an obstacle to

subsequent ones, and no further sensation would occur;

*See iv. 2, 2. fiv. 2, 1.




or they would be effaced by the new ones, which would

destroy memory. If then the soul is capable of recall

ing earlier sensations, and having new ones, to which

the former would form no obstacle, it is because she is

not corporeal.

SENSATION CANNOT BE RELAYED FROM SENSE-

ORGAN TO DIRECTING PRINCIPLE.

7. The same reflections may be made about pain,

and one s feeling of it. When a man s finger is said

to give him pain, this, no doubt, is a recognition that

the seat of the pain is in the finger, and that the feeling

of pain is experienced by the directing principle. Con

sequently, when a part of the spirit suffers, this suffer

ing is felt by the directing principle, and shared by the

whole soul.* How can this sympathy be explained?By relay transmission, (the Stoic) will answer; the

sense-impression is felt first by the animal spirit that

is in the finger, and then transmitted to the neighboring

part, and so on till it reaches the directing part. Neces

sarily, if the pain is felt by the first part that experiences it, it will also be felt by the second part to which

it is transmitted; then by the third, and so on, until the

one pain would have caused an infinite number of

sensations. Last the directing principle will perceiveall these sensations, adding thereto its own sensation.

Speaking strictly, however, each of these sensations

will not transmit the suffering of the finger, but

the suffering of one of the intermediate parts. For

instance, the second sensation will relay the suffer

ing of the hand. The third, that of the arm, and so on,until there will be an infinity of sensations. The direct

ing principle, for its part, will not feel the pain of the

finger, but its own; it will know none but that, it will

*Plutarch, de Placitis Philosoph, iii. 8. The Stoic definition of

sensation being that senses are spirits stretched (by relays with

"tension") from the directing principle to the organs.




pay no attention to the rest, because it will ignore the

pain suffered by the finger. Therefore, relayed sensa

tion is an impossibility, nor could one part of the body

perceive the suffering felt by another part; for the bodyhas extension, and, in

every extension, parts are foreign

to each other (the opposite of the opinion of Clean-

thes, Nemesius).* Consequently, the principle that feels

must everywhere be identical with itself; and among all

beings, the body is that which is least suitable to this

identity.

THE BODY CANNOT THINK.

8. If, in any sense whatever, the soul were a body,

we could not think. Here is the proof. If feelingf is

explained as the soul s laying hold of perceptible things

by making use of the body, thinking cannot also

of making use of the body. Otherwise, thinking

and feeling would be identical. Thus, thinking

must consist in perceiving without the help of the

body (as thought AristotleJ). So much the more,

the thinking principle cannot be corporeal. Since it is

sensation that grasps sense-objects, it must likewise

be thought, or intellection, that grasps intelligible ob

jects. Thoughthis should be

denied,it will be admitted

that we think certain intelligibles entities, and that

we perceive entities that have no extension. Howcould an entity that had extension think one that had

no extension? Or a divisible entity, think an indivis

ible one? Could this take place by an indivisible part?In this case, the thinking subject will not be corporeal;for there is no need that the whole subject be in con

tact with the object; it would suffice if one of its partsreached the object (as Aristotle said against Plato).*de Nat. Horn. 2.

fSee iv. 4, 23. In the words of Zeno, as, for the Stoics, the!

principal act of the intelligence was comprehensive vision, "phanr

tasia kataleptike."

$de Anima, iii. 4, 5. de Anima, i. 3.




If then this truth begranted,

that thehighest thoughtsmust have incorporeal objects, the latter can be cog

nized only by a thinking principle that either is, or

becomes independent of body. Even the objection that

the object of thought is constituted by the forms inher

ent in matter, implies that these forces cannot be

thought unless, by intelligence, they are separated from

matter. It is not by means of the carnal mass of the

body, nor generally by matter, that we can effect the

abstraction of triangle, circle, line or point. To suc

ceed in this abstraction, the soul must separate from the

body, and consequently, the soul cannot be corporeal.

THE BODY CANNOT POSSESS VIRTUE.

Neither dobeauty

orjustice possess extension,

I

suppose; and their conception must be similar. These

things can be cognized or retained only by the indivis

ible part of the soul. If the latter were corporeal,

where indeed could virtues, prudence, justice and cour

age exist? In this case, virtues (as Critias thought),*would be no more than a certain disposition of the

spirit, or blood (as Empedocles also thought). f For

instance, courage and temperance would respectively

be no more than a certain irritability, and a fortunate

temperament of the spirit; beauty would consist in the

agreeable shape of outlines, which cause persons, in

whom they occur, to be called elegant and handsome.

Under this hypothesis, indeed, the types of spirit might

possess vigor and beauty. But what need would it

have of temperance? On the contrary, the spirit wouldseek to be agreeably affected by the things it touches

and embraces, to enjoy a moderate heat, a gentle cool

ness, and to be in contact only with sweet, tender, and

smooth entities. What incentive would the spirit have

to apportion rewards to those who had deserved them?

*de Anim. Arist. i. 2. fCicero, Tusculans, i. 9.




IF VIRTUE WERE CORPOREAL IT WOULD BE

PERISHABLE.

Are the notions of virtue, and other1

intelligible en

tities by the soul thought eternal, or does virtue arise

and perish? If so, by what being, and how will it be

formed? It is the same problem that remains to be

solved. Intelligible entities must therefore be eternal

and immutable, like geometrical notions, and conse

quently cannot be corporeal. Further, the subject in

whom they exist must be of a nature similar to theirs,

and therefore not be corporeal; for the nature of bodyis not to remain immutable, but ta be in a perpetualflow.

BODIES ARE ACTIVE ONLY BY MEANS OF INCORPOREAL POWERS.

(9.) There are men who locate the soul in the body,so as to give her a foundation in some sphere of activ

ity, to account for the various phenomena in the body,such as getting hot or cold, pushing on or stopping,

(and the like). They evidently do not realize that

bodies produce these effects only through incorporeal

powers,and that those are not the

powersthat we

attribute to the soul, which are thought, sensation,

reasoning, desire, judiciousness, propriety and wisdom,all of them entities that cannot possible be attributes

of a corporeal entity. Consequently, those (material

ists) attribute to the body all the faculties of incor

poreal essences, and leave nothing for the latter.

WHY BODIES ARE ACTIVATED BY INCORPOREALPOWERS.

The proof that bodies are activated only by incor

poreal faculties may be proved as follows: Quantityand quality are two different things. Every body has

a quantity, but not always a quality, as in the case of




matter, (accordingto the Stoic definition, that it was a

body without quality, but possessing magnitude*).

Granting this, (you Stoic) will also be forced to admit

that as quality is something different from quantity, it

must consequently be different from the body. Since

then every body "has a quantity, how could quality,

which is no quantity, be a body? Besides, as we said

above,f every body and mass is altered by division;

nevertheless, when a body is cut into pieces, every part

preserves the entire quality without undergoing altera

tion. For instance, every molecule of honey, possesses

the quality of sweetness as much as all the molecules

taken together; consequently that sweetness cannot

be corporeal; and other qualities must be in a similar

case. Moreover, if the active powers were corporeal,

they would have to have a material mass proportionalto their strength or weakness. Now there are great

masses that have little force, and small ones that have

great force; demonstrating that power does not dependon extension, and should be attributed to some (sub

stance) without extension. Finally, you may say that

matter is identical with body, and produces different

beings only by receiving different qualities (the Stoics

considering that even the divinity was no more than

modified matter, their two principles being matter and

quality ;J the latter, however, was also considered as

body). How do you (Stoics) not see that qualities thus

added to matter are reasons, that are primary and im

material? Do not object that when the spirit (breath)

and blood abandon animals, they cease to live; for if

these things are necessary to life, there are for ourlife many other necessities, even during the presenceof the soul (as thought Nemesius). Besides, neither

spirit nor blood are distributed to every part of the

body.

*See ii. 4, 1. JSee ii. 4, 1.

tSee iv. 7, 5. de Nat. Horn. 2.




THE SOUL CAN PENETRATE THE BODY;BUT TWO

BODIES CANNOT PENETRATE EACH OTHER.

( 10) . The soul penetrates the whole body, while an

entire body cannot penetrate another entire body. Fur

ther, if the soul is corporeal, and pervades the whole

body, she will, with the body, form (as Alexander of

Aphrodisia pointed out) a mixture,* similar to the other

bodies (that are consititued by a mixture of matter andquality, as the Stoics taught). Now as none of the

bodies ^hat enter into a mixture is in actualizationf the

soul, instead of being in actualization in the bodies,

would be in them only potentially; consequently, she

would cease to be a soul, as the sweet ceases to be sweet

when mingled with the bitter; we would, therefore,

have no soul left. If, when one body forms a mixture

with another body, total penetration occurs, so that

each molecule contains equal parts of two bodies and

that each body be distributed equally in the whole space

occupied by the mass of the other, without any increase

of volume, nothing that is not divided will remain. In

deed, mixture operates not only between the larger

parts (which would be no more than a simple juxta

position) ; but the two bodies must penetrate each othermutually, even if smaller it would indeed be impossible for the smaller to equal the greater ; still, when the

smaller penetrates the larger it must divide it entirely.

If the mixture operates in this manner in every part,

and if no undivided part of the mass remain, the bodymust be divided into points, which is impossible. In

deed, were this division pushed to infinity, since every

body is fully divisible, bodies will have to be infinite not

only potentially, but also in actuality. It is therefore

impossible for one entire body to penetrate another in

its entirety. Now as the soul penetrates the entire body,the soul must be incorporeal (as thought Nemesius)4

*See ii. 7. fSee ii. 7, 1. JNat. Horn. 2.




THE STOIC DEVELOPMENT FROM HABIT TO SOUL

AND INTELLIGENCE WOULD MAKE THE PERFECTARISE FROM THE IMPERFECT, AN IMPOSSIBILITY.

(11). (If,as Stoics claim, man first was a certain

nature called habit,* then a soul, and last an intel

ligence, the perfect would have arisen from the im

perfect, which is impossible). To say that the first

nature of the soul is to be aspirit,

and that this

spiritbecame soul only after having been exposed to cold,

and as it were became soaked by its contact, be

cause the cold subtilized it;J this is an absurd

hypothesis. Many animals are born in warm places,

and do not have their soul exposed to action of

cold. Under this hypothesis, the primary nature

of the soul would have been made dependent on

the concourse of exterior circumstances. The Stoics,

therefore, posit as principle that which is less per

fect (the soul), and trace it to a still less perfect

earlier thing called habit (or form of inorganic

things) .f Intelligence, therefore, is posited in the last

rank since it is alleged to be born of the soul, while, on

the contrary, the first rank should be assigned to in

telligence, the second to the soul, the third to nature,and, following natural order, consider that which is less

perfect as the posterior element. In this system the

divinity, by the mere fact of his possessing intelligence,

is posterior and begotten, possessing only an incidental

intelligence. The result would, therefore, be that

there was neither soul, nor intelligence, nor divinity;

for never can that which is potential pass to the con

dition of actualization, without the prior existence of

some actualized principle. If what is potential were to

transform itself into actualization which is absurd

its passage into actualization will have to involve at the

*See ii. 4, 16. fSee ii. 4, 16.

tAs thought Chrysippus, in Plutarch, de Stoic. Repugnant.




veryleast a

contemplationof

somethingwhich is not

merely potential, but actualized. Nevertheless, on the

hypothesis that what is potential can permanently re

main identical, it will of itself pass into actualization,

and will be superior to the being which is potential onlybecause it will be the object of the aspiration of such

a being. We must, therefore, assign the first rank to

the being that has a perfect and incorporeal nature,

which is always in actualization. Thus intelligence

and soul are prior to nature; the soul, therefore, is not

a spirit, and consequently no body. Other reasons for

the incorporeality of the soul have been advanced; but

the above suffices (as thought Aristotle).*

II. THE SOUL IS NEITHER THE HARMONY NOR EN-

TELECHY OF THE BODY THE SOUL IS THE HARMONY OF THE BODY; AGAINST THE PYTHAGOREANS.

(12). a. Since the soul is not corporeal, its real

nature must be ascertained. Shall we assert that she is

something distinct from the body, but dependent there

on, as, for instance, a harmony? Pythagoras, indeed,

used this word in a technical sense; and after him the

harmony of the body has been thought to be somethingsimilar to the harmony of a lyre. As tension producesin the lyre-strings an affection (or, manner of being, or

state) that is called harmony, likewise, as contrary ele

ments are mingled in our body, an individual mixture

produces life and soul, which, therefore, is only an

individual affection of this mixture.

WHY THE SOUL IS NOT A HARMONY.

As has already been said abovef this hypothesis is

inadmissible for several reasons. To begin with, the

soul is prior (to the body), and the harmony is pos-

*Met. xii. 6; see ii. 5, 3.

fiv. 7, 3.




terior thereto. Then the soul dominates the body, governs it, and often even resists it, which would be im

possible if the soul were only a harmony. The soul,

indeed, is a"being,"

which harmony is not. Whenthe corporeal principles of which we are composed are

mingled in just proportions, their temperament consti

tutes health (but not a"being,"

such as the soul).

Besides, every part of the body being mingled in a

different manner should form (a different harmony,and consequently) a different soul, so that there would

be several of them. The decisive argument, however,is that this soul (that constitutes a harmony) pre

supposes another soul which would produce this har

mony, as a lyre needs a musician who would produceharmonic vibrations in the strings, because he pos

sesses within himself the reason according to which heproduces the harmony. The strings of the lyre do not

vibrate of themselves, and the elements of our bodycannot harmonize themselves. Nevertheless, under

this hypothesis, animated and orderly "being"would

have been made up out of inanimate and disordered

entities; and these orderly "beings"would owe their

order and existence to chance. That is as

impossiblefor parts as for the whole. The soul, therefore, is no

harmony.

THE SOUL IS NOT THE ENTELECHY OF THE BODY(POLEMIC AGAINST ARISTOTLE). ARISTOTLE S

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.*

(13). b. Now let us examine the opinion of those who

call the soul an entelechy. They say that, in the composite, the soul plays the part of form in respect to

matter, in the body the soul animates. The soul, how

ever, is not said to be the form of any body, nor of the

body as such; but of the natural body, that is organized,and which possesses life potentially, f

*From end of iv. 2. 3. fAristotle, de Anima, ii. 1.




IF THE SOUL IS AN ENTELECHY, SHE IS A DIFFER

ENT ONE THAN ARISTOTLE S.

If the soul s relation to the body is the same as that

of the statue to the metal, the soul will be divided

with the body, and on cutting a member a portion of

the soul would be cut along with it. According to this

teaching, the soul separates from the body only during

sleep, since she must inhere in the body of which she is

the entelechy, in which case sleep would become en

tirely inexplicable. If the soul be an entelechy, the

struggle of reason against the passions would become

entirely impossible. The entire human being will ex

perience but one single sentiment, and never be in dis

agreement with itself. If the soul be an entelechy,there will perhaps still be sensations, but mere sensa

tions; pure thoughts will have become impossible. Consequently the Peripateticians themselves are obliged to

introduce (into human nature) another soul, namely,the pure intelligence, which they consider immortal.*

The rational soul, therefore, would have to be an

entelechy in a manner different from their definition

thereof, if indeed this name is at all to be used.

IF AN ENTELECHY BE GRANTED, IT IS INSEPARABLEFROM THE BODY.

The sense-soul, which preserves the forms of sense-

objects previously perceived, must preserve them with

out the body. Otherwise, these forms would inhere in

the body like figures and corporeal shapes. Now, if

the forms inhered in the sense-soul in this

manner, theycould not be received therein otherwise (than as cor

poreal impressions). That is why, if we do grant the

existence of an entelechy, it must be inseparable fromthe body. Even the faculty of appetite, not indeed that

which makes us feel the need of eating and drinking,

*Arist. de Anima, ii. 2; iii. 5.




but that which desires things that are independent o

r

the body, could not either be an entelechy.*

NEITHER COULD THE SOUL OF GROWTH BE ANENTELECHY.

The soul s faculty of growth remains to be con

sidered. This at least might be thought an inseparable

entelechy.

But neither does that suit her nature. For

if the principle of every plant is in its root, and if growthtakes place around and beneath it,f as occurs in manyplants, it is evident that the soul s faculty of growth,

abandoning all the other parts, has concentrated in the

root alone; it, therefore, was not distributed all around

the soul, like an inseparable entelechy. Add that this

soul, before the plant grows, is already contained in the

small body (of the seed) . If then, after having vivified

a great plant, the soul s faculty of growth can condense

into a small space, and if later it can, from this small

space, again spread over a whole plant, it is evidently

entirely separable from the (plant s) matter.

THE ENTELECHY IS NOT A FORM OF THE BODY,AS THE SOUL TRANSMIGRATES.

Besides, as the soul is indivisible, the entelechy of

the divisible body could not become divisible as is the

body. Besides, the same soul passes from the body of

one animal into the body of some other. Howcould the soul of the first become that of the second,

if she were only the entelechy of a single one? The

exampleof animals that

metamorphosedemonstrates

the impossibility of this theory. The soul, therefore,

is not the simple form of a body; she is a genuine

"being,"which does not owe its existence merely to

her being founded on the body, but which, on the con

trary, exists before having become the soul of some

*See Aristotle, de Anima, i. 5.

fSee Aristotle, de Anima, ii. 2.




individual animal.It

is, therefore, not the body thatbegets the soul.

THE SOUL IS AN INCORPOREAL AND IMMORTALESSENCE. THE SOUL BEING NONE OF CORPOREAL POSSIBILITIES, MUST BE INCORPOREAL,

c. What then can be the nature of the soul, if she

is neither a body, nor a corporeal affection, while,

nevertheless, all the active force, the productive powerand the other faculties reside in her, or come from her?

What sort of a"being," indeed, is this (soul) that has

an existence independent of the body? She must evi

dently be a veritable"being." Indeed, everything cor

poreal must be classified as generated, and ex

cluded from genuine "being,"because it is born, and

perishes, never really exists, and owes its salvation exclusively to participation in the genuine existence, and

that only in the measure of its participation therein.

THE PERSISTENCE OF THE CHANGEABLE IMPLIESTHE ETERNAL IN THE BACKGROUND.*

9 (14). It is absolutely necessary to postulate the

existence of a nature different from bodies, by itself

fully possessing genuine existence, which can neither be

born nor perish. Otherwise, all other things would hope

lessly disappear, as a result of the destruction of the

existence which preserves both the individuals and the

universe, as their beauty and salvation. The soul, in

deed, is the principle of movement (as Plato thought,in the Phraedrus) ;

it is the soul that imparts movement

to everything else; the soul moves herself. She

1

,

imparts life to the body she animates; but alone she possesses life, without ever being subject to losing it,

because she possesses it by herself. All beings, indeed,

*Here w<e resume Ennead IV. Book 7. The bracketed numbers are those of the Teubner text

; the unbracketed those of the

Didot edition.




live only by a borrowed life; otherwise, we would haveto proceed from cause to cause unto infinity. There

must, therefore, exist a nature that is primarily alive,

necessarily incorruptible and immortal because it is

the principle of life for everything else. It is thereon

that must be founded all that is divine and blessed, that

lives and exists by itself, that lives and exists supremely,which is immutable in its essence, and which can

neither be born nor perish. How indeed could exist

ence be born or perish? If the name of "existence"

really suited it, it must exist forever, just as whiteness

is not alternately black and white. If whiteness were

existence itself, it would, with its"being" (or nature)

(which is, to be whiteness), possess an eternal exist

ence; but, in reality, it is no more than whiteness.

Therefore, the principle that possesses existence in it

self and in a supreme degree will always exist. Nowthis primary and eternal existence can not be anythingdead like a stone, or a piece of wood. It must live, and

live with a pure life, as long as it exists within itself. If

something of it mingles with what is inferior, this part

meets obstacles in its aspiration to the good; but it

does not lose its nature, and resumes its former condi

tion on returning to a suitable condition (as thought

Plato, in his Phaedo*).

THE SOUL IS INCORPOREAL BECAUSE OF HERKINSHIP WITH THE DIVINE.

10. (15). The soul has affinities with the divine and

eternal nature. This is evident, because, as we have

demonstrated it, she is not a body, has neither figure

nor color, and is impalpable. Consider the followingdemonstration. It is generally granted that everythingthat is divine and that possesses genuine existence en

joys a happy and wise life. Now let us consider the

nature of our soul, in connection with that of the divine.

Let us take a soul, not one inside of a body, which is

*Page 299, Cousin.




undergoing the irrational motions of appetite and

anger, and the other affections born of the body, but a

soul that has eliminated all that, and which, so far as

possible, had no intercourse with the body. Such a

soul would show us that vices are something foreign to

the nature of the soul, and come to her from else

where, and that, inasmuch as she is purified, she in her

own right possesses the most eminent qualities, wisdom,

and the other virtues (as thought Plato*). If the soul,

when re-entering into herself, is such, how could she

not participate in this nature that we have acknowl

edged to be suitable to every thing that is eternal and

divine? As wisdom and real virtue are divine things,

they could not dwell in a vile and mortal entity; the

existence that receives them is necessarily divine, since

it

participates

in divine

things bytheir mutual

affinityand community. Anyone who thus possesses wisdom

and virtue in his soul differs little from the superior

beings; he is inferior to them only by the fact of his

having a body. If all men, or at least, if many of them

held their soul in this disposition, no one would be

sceptic enough to refuse to believe that the soul is im

mortal. But as we consider the soul in her present con

dition of being soiled by vices, no one imagines that hernature is divine and immortal.

THE SOUL, LIKE OTHER THINGS, SHOULD BE

JUDGED IN HER PUREST CONDITION.

Now when we consider the nature of some being, it

should be studied in its rarest condition, since extrane

ous additions hinder it frombeing rightly judged.The soul must be therefore considered only after

abstraction of foreign things, or rather, he who makes

this abstraction should observe himself in that condi

tion. He then will not doubt that he is immortal, whenhe sees himself in the pure world of intelligence. He

*Quoted in i. 1, 12, in Republic x.




will see his

intelligence occupied,not in the observa

tion of some sense-object that is mortal, but in thinkingthe eternal by an equally eternal faculty.* He will see

all the entities in the intelligible world, and he will see

himself become intelligible, radiant, and illuminated bythe truth emanating from the Good, which sheds the

light of truth on all intelligible entities.f Then (like

Empedocles, in Diog. LaertesJ), he will have the ri^ht

to say:

"Farewell, I am now an immortaldivinity."

For he has ascended to the divinity, and has become

assimilated thereto. As purification permits one to

know the better things, so the notions we have within

us, and which constitute real science, are made clear.

Indeed, it is not by an excursion among external ob

jects that the soul attains the intuition of wisdom andvirtue, but by re-entering into herself, in thinking her

self in her primitive condition. Then she clears up and

recognizes in herself the divine statues, soiled by the

rust of time. Likewise, if a piece of gold were animated

and released itself from the earth by which it was cov

ered, after first having been ignorant of its real nature

because it did not see its own splendor, it would admire

itself when considering itself in its purity; it would find

that it had no need of a borrowed beauty, and would

consider itself happy to remain isolated from every

thing else.

EVEN ON THE STOIC HYPOTHESIS THE SOUL MUSTBE IMMORTAL.

11. (16). What sensible man, after having thus

considered the nature of the soul, could still doubt of

the immortality of a principle which derives life from

naught but itself, and which cannot lose it? Howcould the soul lose life, since she did not borrow it

from elsewhere, and since she does not possess it as

fire possesses heat ? For, without being an accident of

*Se i. 1, 11. fSee i. 6, 9. JSee viii. 62. See i. 6, 5.




fire, the heat, nevertheless, is an accident of its matter;

for fire can perish. But, in the soul, life is not an ac

cident that comes to add itself to a material subject to

constitute a soul. In fact, there is here an alternative:

either life is a genuine "being,"which is alive by itself;

in which case this"being"

is the soul that we are seek

ing to discover, and immortality cannot be refused her;

or the soul is a composite, and she must be decomposed

until we arrive at something immortal which moves byitself; and such a principle could not be subject to death.

Further, when (Stoics) say that life is only an acci

dental modification of matter, they are thereby forced

to acknowledge that the principle that imparted this

modification to matter is immortal, and incapable of

admitting anything contrary to what it communicates

(that is, life, as said Plato, in his Phaedo*), but there

is only a single nature that possesses life in actualiza

tion.

THERE IS NO CONCEIVABLE WAY IN WHICH SOULCOULD PERISH.

12. (17). (The Stoics), indeed, claim that everysoul is perishable. In this case, everything should longsince have been destroyed. Others might say that our

soul were mortal, while the universal Soul were immortal. On them, however, is the burden of proof of a

difference between the individual and universal souls.

Both of them, indeed, are a principle of movement;both live by themselves; both grasp the same object bythe same faculty, either by thinking the things containedin heaven, or by considering the nature

("being")of

eachbeing, ascending unto the

firstprinciple. Since oursoul thinks absolute essences either by the notions she

finds^within herself, or by reminiscence, she evidently

is prior to the body. Possessing knowledge of eternal

entities, she herself must be eternal. All that dissolves,

existing only by its compositeness, can naturally dis-

*Page 297, Cousin.




solve in the same manner that it became composite.But the soul is a single, simple actualization, whose

essence is life; not in this manner therefore can the soul

perish. Neither could the soul perish by division into a

number of parts; for, as we have shown, the soul is

neither a mass nor a quantity. As little could the soul

perish by alteration; for when alteration destroys any

thing,it

may removeits

form, but leavesits

matter;alteration, therefore, is a characteristic of something

composite. Consequently as the soul cannot perishin any of these ways, she is imperishable.

DESCENT INTO THE BODY NEED NOT CONFLICTWITH THE ETERNITY OF SOUL.

13. (18). If intelligible entities are separated from

sense objects, how does it happen that the soul descends

into a body ?* So long as the soul is a pure and impassi

ble intelligence, so long as she enjoys a purely intellect

ual life like the other intelligible beings, she dwells

among them; for she has neither appetite nor desire. But

that part which is inferior to intelligence and which is

capable of desires, follows their impulsion, "proceeds"

and withdraws from the intelligible world. Wishing toornament matter on the model of the Ideas she contem

plated in Intelligence, in haste to exhibit her fruitful-

ness, and to manifest the germs she bears within her

(as said Plato, in the Banquetf), the soul applies herself

to produce and create, and, as result of this application,

she is, as it were, orientated (or, in"tension")

towards

sense-objects.With the universal

Soul,the human

soul shares the administration of the whole world,

without, however, entering it; then, desiring to ad

minister some portion of the world on her own re

sponsibility, she separates from the universal Soul, and

passes into a body. But even when she is present with

the body, the soul does not devote herself entirely to

*See iv. 8, 5. fPages 206, 312, 313, Cousin.



84 WORKS OF PLOT1NOS [2

it, as some part of her always remains outside of it;

that is how her intelligence remains impassible.*

THE SOUL AS THE ARTIST OF THE UNIVERSE.

The soul is present in the body at some times, and at

other times, is outside of it. When, indeed, followingher own inclination, she descends from first-rank

entities

(thatis,

intelligible entities)to third-rank en

tities (that is, earthly entities), she"proceeds" by

virtue of the actualization of intelligence, which, re

maining within herself, embellishes everything by the

ministration of the soul, and which, itself being im

mortal, ordains everything with immortal power; for

intelligence exists continuously by a continuous actuali

zation,f

ALL SOULS HAVE IMMORTALITY, EVEN IF SUNKINTO ANIMALS OR PLANTS.

14. (19). What about the souls of animals inferior to

man? The (rational) souls that have strayed so far as

to descend into the bodies of animals are nevertheless

still immortal.} Souls of a kind other (than rational

souls),cannot

proceed from anything else than theliving nature (of the universal Soul) ;

and they neces

sarily are the principles of life for all animals. Thecase is the same with the souls that inhere in plants.

Indeed, all souls have issued from the same principle

(the universal Soul), all have an individual life, and are

indivisible and incorporeal essences("beings").

EVEN IF THE SOUL HAS DIFFERENT PARTS, THEORIGINAL PARTS SURVIVE.

To the objection that the human soul must decom

pose because she contains three parts, it may be

answered that, when souls issue from here below, those

that are purified leave what had been added to them in

*See iv. 8, 8. fSee iv. 8, 6, 7. JSee i. 1, 11.




generation (the irrational soul,*) while the other non-

purified souls do free themselves therefrom with time.

Besides, this lower part of the soul does not itself perish,

for it exists as long as the principle from which it pro

ceeds. Indeed, nothing that exists is annihilated.

THE HISTORIC EVIDENCE FOR IMMORTALITY OF

THE SOUL.15. (20). This, then, is our answer to those who seek

a philosophical demonstration. Those who are satisfied

with the testimony of faith and sense, may be referred

to those extracts from history which furnish numerous

proofs thereof,f We may also refer to the oracles

given by the divinities who order an appeasement of

the souls who were victims of someinjustice,

and to

honor the dead,** and to the rites observed by all

towards those who live no more;J which presupposes

that their souls are still conscious beyond. Even after

leaving their bodies, many souls who lived on the earth

have continued to grant benefits to men. By revela

tion of the future;|| and rendering other services, they

themselves prove that the other souls cannot have

perished.

*See iv. 5, 7.

fCicero, Tusculans, i. 12-16.

iPlato, in Diog, Laert, iii. 83.

Cicero, Tusculans, i. 18, 37.

||Cicero, Tusculans, i. 12, 18; de Divinat, i. 58.

**Such as Porphyry s "Philosophy derived from Oracles."

As the first book was evidently Platonic, the second seems

Numenian, reminding us of the latter s book on the Immortality

of the Saul, one of the arguments from which we find in 3 E.




THIRD ENNEAD, BOOK FIRST.

Concerning Fate.

POSSIBLE THEORIES ABOUT FATE.

1. The first possibility is that there is a cause both

for the things that become, and those that are; the cause

of the former being their becoming, and that of the

latter, their existence. Again, neither of them may have

a cause. Or, in both cases, some may have a cause, andsome not. Further, those that become might have a

cause, while, of these that exist, some might partly

have a cause. Contrariwise, all things that exist mayhave a cause, while of those that become, parts mayhave a cause, and part not. Last, none of the things

that become might have any cause.

EXCEPT THE FIRST, ALL THINGS ARE CAUSED.

Speaking of eternal things, the first cannot be de

rived from other causes, just because they are first.

Things dependent from the first, however, may indeed

thence derive their being. To each thing we should also

attribute the resultant action; for a thing s being is

constituted

byits

displayed energy.

STOIC AND EPICUREAN CAUSELESS ORIGIN REALLYTHE UTMOST DETERMINISM.

Now among the things that become, or among those

that although perpetually existent do not always result

in the same actions, it may be boldly asserted that



iii.l] OF FATE 87

everything has a cause. V/e should not admit (theStoic contention*) that something happens without a

cause, nor accept the (Epicureanf) arbitrary convergence of the atoms, nor believe that any body initiates

a movement suddenly and without determining reason,

nor suppose (with Epicurus againf) that the soul under

takes some action by a blind impulse, without anymotive. Thus to suppose that a thing does not belongto itself, that it could be carried away by involuntary

movements, and act without motive, would be to sub

ject it to the most crushing determinism. The will must

be excited, or the desire awakened by some interior or

exterior stimulus. No determination (is possible) with

out motive.

EVERY GOOD THING HAS SOME CAUSE; NATUREBEING THE ULTIMATE CAUSE.

If everything that happens has a cause, it is possible

to discover such fact s proximate causes, and to them

refer this fact. People go downtown, for example, to

see a person, or collect a bill. In all cases it is a matter

of choice, followed by decision, and the determina

tion to carry it out. There are, indeed, certain factsusually derived from the arts; as for instance the re-

establishment of health may be referred to medicine

and the physician. Again, when a man has become

rich, this is due to his finding some treasure, or receivingsome donation, to working, or exercising some lucrative

profession. The birth of a child depends on its father,

and the concourse of exterior circumstances, which, bythe concatenation of causes and effects, favored his

procreation; for example, right food, or even a still

more distant cause, the fertility of the mother, or, still

more generally, of nature (or, in general, it is usual

to assign natural causes).

*Chrysippus, in Cicero, de Fato, 10.

fCicero, de Finibus, i. 6. JCicero, de Natura Deorum, i. 25.




PROXIMATE CAUSES ARE UNSATISFACTORY; WEMUST SEEK THE ULTIMATE ONES.

2. To stop, on arriving at these causes, and to re

fuse further analysis, is to exhibit superficiality. This

is against the advice of the sages, who advise ascend

ing to the primary causes, to the supreme principles.

For example, why, during the full moon, should the

one man steal, and the other one not steal ? Or, why,

under the same influence of the heavens, has the one,

and not the other, been sick? Why, by use of the

same means, has the one become rich, and the other

poor? The difference of dispositions, characters, and

fortunes force us to seek ulterior causes, as indeed the

sages have always done.

MATERIALISTS SUPPORT DETERMINISM.Those sages who (like Leucippus, Democritus and

Epicurus) assumed material principles such as the

atoms, and who explain everything by their motion,

their shock and combinations, pretend that everythingexistent and occurring is caused by the agency of these

atoms, their "actions and reactions." This includes,

according to them, our appetites and dispositions. Thenecessity residing in the nature of these principles, and

in their effects, is therefore, by these sages, extended

to everything that exists. As to the (Ionic Hylicists),

who assume other physical (ultimate) principles, re

ferring everything to them, they thus also subject all

beings to necessity.

HERACLITUS, THOUGH MORE SPIRITUAL, IS ALSODETERMINIST.

There are others (such as Heraclitus*), who, seekingthe (supreme) principle of the universe, refer every

thing to it; saying that this principle penetrates, moves,

*Stobeus, Eel. Phys. i. 6, p, 178.



iii.l]OF FATE 89

andproduces everything.

Thisthey

call

Fate,and the

Supreme Cause. From it they derive everything; its

motions are said to give rise not only to the things that

are occurring, but even our thought. That is howthe members of an animal do not move themselves, but

receive the stimulus from the "governing principle1

within them.

THE ASTROLOGERS MAKE COSMIC DEDUCTIONSFROM PROGNOSTICATION.

Some (of the astrologers) explain everything by the

circular motion of the heavens, by the relative positions

of the planets and stars, and by their mutual aspects

(or, relations). They base this (principle) on the

prevalent habit of deducing therefrom conjectures

about futurity.

THE STOIC DETERMINISM IS BASED ON VARIOUSTHEORIES.

Others (like the Stoic Chrysippus*) define Fate

otherwise: it is "the concatenation of causes" in "their

connection towards the infinite," by which every pos

terior fact is the consequence of an anterior one. Thusthe things that follow relate to the things that precede,

and, as their effects, necessarily depend thereupon.

Amidst these (Stoic) philosophers there are two con

ceptions of Fate: some consider that everything de

pends from a single principle, while others do not.

These views we shall study later.

We shall first examine the system with which we

began; later we shall review the others.

THE PHYSICAL THEORIES ARE ABSURD.

3. To refer everything to physical causes, whether

you call them atoms or elements, and from their dis-

*Aulus Gelllus, Noctes Atticse, vi. 2.




ordered motion to deduce order, reason and the soul

that directs (the body), is absurd and impossible;

nevertheless, to deduce everything from atoms, is, if

possible, still more impossible; and consequently manyvalid objections have been raised against this theory.

THE STOIC POLEMIC AGAINST THE EPICUREANS.

To begin with, even if we do admit such atomic

principles, their existence does not in any way inevit

ably lead to either the necessity of all things, or fatality.

Let us, indeed, grant the existence of atoms; now some

will move downwards that is, if there is an up and

down in the universe others obliquely, by chance, in

various directions. As there will be noorder,

there will

be nothing determinate. Only what will be born of

the atoms will be determinate. It will therefore be

impossible to guess or predict events, whether by art

and indeed, how could there be any art in the midst

of orderless things? or by enthusiasm, or divine in

spiration; for prediction implies that the future is de

termined. True, bodies will obey the impulses neces

sarily communicated to them by the atoms; but howcould you explain the operations and affections of the

soul by movements of atoms? How could atomic

shock, whether vertical or oblique, produce in the soul

these our reasonings, or appetites, whether necessarily,

or in any other way? What explanation could they

give of the soul s resistance to the impulsions of the

body? Bywhat concourse of atoms will one

manbecome a geometrician, another become a mathe

matician and astronomer, and the other a philosopher?

For, according to that doctrine we no longer produce

any act for which we are responsible, we are even no

longer living beings, since we undergo the impulsion of

bodies that affect us just as they do inanimate things.



lii.l]OF FATE 91

APPLICATION OF THIS POLEMIC TO THEPHYSICISTS.

The same objections apply to the doctrine of the

philosophers who explain everything by other physical

causes (such as "elements"). Principles of inferior

nature might well warm us, cool us, or even make us

perish; but they could not beget any of the operations

which the soul produces; these have an entirely dif

ferent cause.

RESTATEMENT OF HERACLITUS S POSITION.

4. But might (Heraclitus) suppose that a single Soul

interpenetrating the universe produces everything, and

by supplying the universe with motion supplies it

simultaneously to all its constituent beings, so that

from this primary cause, would necessarily flow all

secondary causes, whose sequence and connection

would constitute Fate? Similarly, in a plant, for in

stance, the plant s fate might be constituted by the

("governing") principle which, from the root, admin

isters its other parts, and which organizes into a single

system their "actions" and "reactions."*

THIS WOULD INTERFERE WITH SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS AND RESPONSIBILITY.

To begin with, this Necessity and Fate would by their

excess destroy themselves, and render impossible the

sequence and concatenation of the causes. It is,in

deed, absurd to insist that our members are moved byFate when they are set in motion, or innervated, bythe "governing principle." It is a mistake to supposethat there is a part which imparts motion, and on the

other hand, a part which receives it from the former;it is the governing principle that moves the leg, as it

would any other part. Likewise, if in the universe

exists but a single principle which "acts and reacts," if

things derive from each other by a series of causes each

*As thought the Stoics, Cicero, de Nat. Deor. ii. 11.




of which refers to the preceding one, it will no longer

be possible to say truly that all things arise through

causes, for their totality will constitute but a single

being. In that case, we are no longer ourselves; actions

are no longer ours; it is no longer we who reason; it

is a foreign principle which reasons, wills, and acts in

us,, just as it is not our feet that walk, but we whowalk by the agency of our feet. On the contrary, com

mon sense admits that every person lives, thinks, andacts by his own individual, proper life, thought and

action; to each must be left the responsibility of his

actions* good or evil, and not attribute shameful deeds

to the universal cause.

RESTATEMENT OF THE ASTROLOGICAL THEORY

OF FATE.

5. Others, again, insist that this is not the state of

affairs. Their disposition depends on the circular

movement of the heaven which governs everything, on

the course of the stars, of their mutual relative position

at the time of their rising, of their setting, of their

zenith, or of their conjunction. Indeed, such are the

signs on which are founded prognostications and predictions of what is to happen, not only to the universe,

but also to each individual, both as to his fortunes and

his thought. It is noticed that the other animals and

vegetables increase or decrease according to the kind

of sympathy existing between them and the stars, that

all other things experience their influence, that various

regionsof the earth differ

accordingto their

adjustment with the stars, and especially the sun; that from

the nature of these regions depend not only the char

acter of the plants and animals, but also human forms,

size, color, affections, passions, tastes, and customs. In

this system, therefore, the course of the stars is the

absolute cause of everything.



iii.l]OF FATE 93

REFUTATION OF THE ASTROLOGICAL SYSTEM.

To this we answer that our astrologer attributes in

directly to the stars all our characteristics: will, pas

sions, vices and appetites; he allows us no role other

than to turn like mills, instead of responsibility, as

befits men, producing actions that suit our nature. Onthe contrary, we should be left in possession of what

belongs to us by the observation that the universe

limits itself to exercising some influence on what wepossess already thanks to ourselves, and which is really

characteristic of us. Moreover, one should distinguish

the deeds in which we are"active,"

from those in which

we are necessarily "passive,"and not deduce every

thing from the stars. Nobody, indeed, doubts that the

differences of place and climate exert an influence over

us,

imparting

to us, for instance, a cool or warmhearted disposition. Heredity also should be con

sidered; for children usually resemble their parents bytheir features, form, and some affections of the ir

rational soul. Nevertheless, even though they resemble

them by their facial features, because they are born in

the same place, they may differ in habits and thoughts,because these things depend on an entirely different

principle. In addition, we can adduce to the supportof this truth the resistance which the soul offers to the

temperament and to the appetites.*- As to the claim

that the stars are the causes of everything, because one

can predict what is to happen to each man from a con

sideration of their positions, it would be just as reason

able to assert that the birds and the other beings which

theaugurs consult

as

omens produce the events ofwhich they are the signs.

HOROSCOPES QUESTIONED; THEY DO NOT ACCOUNTFOR SIMULTANEOUS DIFFERENCES.

This leads us to consider, more in detail, what sort

of facts may be predicted according to the inspection of




thepositions occupied by

the stars

presiding

over the

birth of a man. They who, from the assertion that the

stars indicate a man s future, draw the consequence that

the stars produce them, are in error. In some person s

horoscope which indicates birth from noble parents,

on either maternal or paternal side, this nobility of

birth cannot be attributed to the stars, as this nobility

subsisted already in the parents before the stars had

taken the position according to which the horoscopeis cast. Besides, astrologers pretend they can discover

the parent s fortune from the birth of their children,

and from the condition of the parents the disposition

and fate of the unborn offspring. From a child s horo

scope, they announce his brother s death; and from a

woman s horoscope, the fortunes of her husband, and

conversely.It is unreasonable to refer to the stars

things which evidently are necessary consequences of

parental conditions. We then reach a dilemma: the

cause lies either in these antecedent conditions, or in

the stars. The beauty and ugliness of children, when

they resemble their parents, must evidently be derived

from them, and not from the course of the stars. More

over, it is probable that at any one moment are born

a crowd of human and animal young; now, inasmuchas they are born under the same star, they all oughtto have the same nature. How does it then happen

that, in the same positions, stars produce men and

other beings simultaneously (as Cicero asks*) ?

HEREDITY MORE IMPORTANT THAN STAR-INFLUENCE; CONTINUATION.

6. Each being derives his character from his nature.One being is a horse because he is born from a mare,

while another is human, because born from a human

mother; and more: he is that particular horse, and that

particular man because he is born from such and such

a horse, or woman. Doubtless, the course of the stars

*Cicero, de Divinatione, ii. 44.



iii.l]OF FATE 95

may modifythe

result,but the

greatest partof

thein

fluence must be allowed to heredity.

STARS AFFECT THE PHYSICAL, NOT THE MENTALBEING.

The stars act on the body only in a physical way, and

thus impart to them heat, cold, and the variety of tem

perament which results therefrom. But how could they

endow the man with habits, tastes, and inclinationswhich do not seem to depend on the temperament, such

as the avocation of a surveyor, a grammarian, a gambler, or an inventor?

IRRATIONAL CLAIMS OF ASTROLOGERS.

Besides, nobody would admit that perversity could

come from beings who are divinities. How could one

believe that they are the authors of the evils attributed

to them, and that they themselves become evil because

they set or pass under the earth, as if they could pos

sibly be affected by the fact that, in regard to us, theyseem to set; as if they did not continue to wanderaround the heavenly sphere, and remained in the samerelation to the earth? Besides it is incredible that be

cause a star is in such or such a position in respect ofanother star, it becomes better or worse, and that it

affects us with goodness when it is well disposed, and

evil in the contrary case.

STARS SERVE AS LETTERS IN WHICH TO READNATURE.

We grant that by their movement the stars co-operate

in the conservation of the universe, and that they

simultaneously play in it another part. They serve as

letters for those skilled in deciphering this kind of

writing; and who, by the observation of the figuresformed by the stars, read into them future events ac

cording to the laws of analogy, as for instance, if one

presaged high deeds from seeing a bird fly high.




RESTATEMENT OF THESTOIC

DOCTRINE, AND THEHERACLITIAN.

7. There remains to be considered the (Stoic) doc

trine which, concatenating and interrelating all things

among each other, establishes "a single cause which

produces everything through seminal reasons." This

doctrine reattaches itself to (Heraclitus s) which de

duces from the action of the universal Soul the con

stitution and the movements of the individuals as well

as those of the universe.

ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIA S POLEMIC AGAINSTTHE STOICS.

In this case, even if we possessed the power of doing

something by ourselves, we would not be any the less

than the remainder of the universe subjected to necessity, because Fate, containing the whole series of causes,

necessarily determines each event. Now since Fate in

cludes all causes, there is nothing which could hinder

the occurrence of that event, or alter it. If then

everything obeys the impulsion of a single principle,

nothing is left to us but to follow it. Indeed, in this

case, the fancies of our imagination would result from

anterior facts, and would in turn determine our ap

petites; our liberty would then have become a mere

word; nor would we gain any advantage from obeyingour appetites, since our appetites themselves will be

determined by anterior facts. We would have no more

liberty than the other animals, than children, or the

insane, who run hither and yon, driven by blind ap

petites; for they also obey their appetites, as fire woulddo, and as all the things which fatally follow the dis

positions of their nature. These objections will be

decisive for those capable of apprehending them; and

in the search for other causes of our appetites theywill not content themselves with the principles which

we have examined.



iii.l]OF FATE 97

THE HUMAN SOUL AS AN INDEPENDENT PRINCIPLE.

8. What other cause, besides the preceding, will

we have to invoke so as to let nothing occur without

a cause, to maintain order and interdependence of

things in the world, and in order to preserve the pos

sibility of predictions and omens without destroying our

personality?We shall have to introduce among the number of

beings another principle, namely: the soul; and not only

the World-soul, but even the individual soul of every

person. In the universal concatenation of causes and

effects, this soul is a principle of no little importance,

because, instead of, like all other things, being born of

a "seminal reason," it constitutes a "primary cause."

Outside of a body, she remains absolute mistress of

herself, free and independent of the cause which administers the world. As soon as she has descended into

a body, she is no longer so independent, for she then

forms part of the order to which all things are sub

jected. Now, inasmuch as the accidents of fortune,

that is to say, the surrounding circumstances, determine

many events, the soul alternately yields to the influence

of externalcircumstances,

and thenagain

she dominates

them, and does what she pleases. This she does more

or less, according as she is good or evil. When she

yields to the corporeal temperament, she is necessarily

subjected to desire or anger, discouraged in poverty, or

proud in prosperity, as well as tyrannical in the exercise

of power. But she can resist all these evil tendencies

if her disposition is good; she modifies her surroundings

more than she is affected by them; some things she

changes, others she tolerates without herself incurring

guilt.

THE SOUL IS FREE WHEN FOLLOWING REASON.

9. All things therefore, which result either from a

choice by the soul, or from exterior circumstances, are




"necessary," or determined by a cause. Could anything, indeed, be found outside of these causes? If we

gather into one glance all the causes we admit, we find

the principles that produce everything, provided we

count, amidst external causes, the influence exercised bythe course of the stars. When a soul makes a decision,

and carries it out because she is impelled thereto byexternal things, and yields to a blind impulse, we should

not consider her determination and action to be free.

The soul is not free when, perverting herself, she does

not make decisions which direct her in the straight path.

On the contrary, when she follows her own guide, pureand impassible reason, her determination is really

voluntary, free and independent, and the deed she

performs is really her own work, and not the conse

quence of an exterior impulse; she derives it from herinner power, her pure being, from the primary and

sovereign principle which directs her, being deceived

by no ignorance, nor vanquished by the power of ap

petites; for when the appetites invade the soul, and

subdue her, they drag her with them .by their violence,

and she is rather"passive"

than "active" in what she

does.

THE SOUL OBEYS FATE ONLY WHEN EVIL.

10. The conclusion of our discussion is that while

everything is indicated and produced by causes, these

are of two kinds: first the human soul, and then only ex

terior circumstances. When the soul acts "conform

ably to right reason" she acts freely. Otherwise, she

is tangled up in her deeds, and she is rather "passive"

than "active." Therefore, whenever she lacks pru

dence, the exterior circumstances are the causes of her

actions; one then has good reason to say that she obeys

Fate, especially if Fate is here considered as an exterior

cause. On the contrary, virtuous actions are derived

from ourselves; for, when we are independent, it is



iii.l] OF FATE

natural for us to produce them. Virtuous men act, and

do good freely. Others do good only in breathing-

spells left them in between by their passions. If, during

these intervals, they practice the precepts of wisdom, it

is not because they receive them from some other

being, it is merely because their passions do not hinder

them from listening to the voice of reason.

As the first book seemed Platonic, and the second Numenian,so this third on.; seems called fonth by the practical opposition of

astrologers or Gnostics. Later in life, his thirty-third book,

id. 9, was to take up again this polemic in more extended form.

This chronologic arrangement of Plotinos s first three books

reveals his three chief sources of interest devotion to Plato,

reliance on Numenius, and opposition to the Gnostics and astrol

ogers.




FOURTH ENNEAD, BOOK FIRST.

Of the Being of the Soul.

It is in the intelligible world that dwells veritable

being. Intelligence is the best that there is on high;

but there are also souls; for it is thence that they de

scended thither. Only, souls have no bodies, while

here below they inhabit bodies and are divided there.

Onhigh,

all theintelligences

exist together, without

separation or division; all the souls exist equally to

gether in that world which is one, and there is no local

distance between them. Intelligence therefore ever

remains inseparable and indivisible; but the soul, in

separable so long as she resides on high, nevertheless

possesses a divisible nature. For her"dividing

herself"

consists in departing from the intelligible world, and

uniting herself to bodies; it might therefore be reason

ably said that she becomes divisible in passing into

bodies, since she thus separates from the intelligible

world, and divides herself somewhat. In what wayis she also indivisible? In that she does not separateherself entirely from the intelligible world, ever re

siding there by her highest part, whose nature it is to

be indivisible. Tosay

then that the soul is

composedof indivisible (essence) and of (essence) divisible in

bodies means then no more than that the soul has an

(essence) which dwells partly in the intelligible world,

and partly descends into the sense-world, which is sus

pended from the first and extends downwards to the

second, as the ray goes from the centre to the circum-



iv.l] WORKS OF PLOTINOS 101

ference. When the soul descended here below, it is

by her superior part that she contemplates the intel

ligible world, as it is thereby that she preserves the

nature of the all (of the universal Soul). For here

below she is not only divisible, but also indivisible;

her divisible part is divided in a somewhat indivisible

manner; she is indeed entirely present in the whole

body in an indivisible manner, and nevertheless she is

said to divideherself because she spreads out entirely in

the whole body.




FIFTH ENNEAD, BOOK NINE.

Of Intelligence, Ideas and Essence.

THE SENSUAL MAN, THE MORAL, AND THESPIRITUAL.

1. From their birth, men exercise their senses,

earlier than their intelligence,1 and they are by neces

sity forced to direct their attention to sense-objects.Some stop there, and spend their life without progress

ing further. They consider suffering as evil, and

pleasure as the good, judging it to be their business to

avoid the one and encompass the other. That is the

content of wisdom for those of them that pride themselves on being reasonable; like those heavy birds

who, having weighted themselves down by picking uptoo much from the earth, cannot take flight, though

by nature provided with wings. There are others whohave raised themselves a little above earthly objectsbecause their soul, endowed with a better nature, with

draws from pleasures to seek something higher;2 but

as they are not capable of arriving at contemplationof the intelligible, (and as, after having left our lower

region here, they do not know where to lodge, theyreturn to a conception of morality which considers

virtue to consist in these common-place actions and

occupations whose narrow sphere they had at first

attempted to leave behind. Finally a third kind is that

of those divine men who are endowed with a piercing

vision, and whose penetrating glance contemplates the

splendor of the intelligible world, and rise unto it,



v.9] OF INTELLIGENCE, IDEAS, ESSENCE 103

takingtheir

flight

above the clouds and darkness of this

world. Then, full of scorn for terrestrial things, theyremain up there, and reside in their true fatherland

with the unspeakable bliss of the man who, after long

journeys, is at last repatriated.

THE HIGHER REGION REACHED ONLY BY THOSEWHO ARE BORN PHILOSOPHERS.

2. Which is this higher region? What must bedone to reach it? One must be naturally disposed to

love, and be really a born philosopher.3 In the

presence of beauty, the lover feels something similar

to the pains of childbirth; but far from halting at bodily

beauty, he rises to that aroused in the soul by virtue,

duties, science and laws. Then he follows them up to

the cause of theirbeauty, and

in thisascending progress

stops only when he has reached the Principle that oc

cupies the first rank, that which is beautiful in itself.4

Then only does he cease being driven by this torment

that we compare to the pains of childbirth.

LOVE IS TRANSFORMED INTO PROGRESSIVELYHIGHER STAGES.

But how does he rise up thither? How does hehave the power to do so ? How does he learn to love ?

Here it is. The beauty seen in bodies is incidental; it

consists in the shapes of which the bodies are the

matter. 5Consequently the substance changes, and it

is seen changing from beauty to ugliness. The bodyhas only a borrowed beauty. Who imparted that

beauty to the body? On the one hand, the presenceof beauty; on the other, the actualization of the soul,

which fashioned the body, and which gave it the shapeit possesses. But is the soul, by herself, absolute

beauty? No, since some souls are wise and beautiful,

while some others are foolish and ugly. It is therefore

only by wisdom that the soul is beautiful. But from



104 WORKS QE PLOTINOS [5

whatis

her wisdom derivied?

Necessarily fromintel

ligence; not from the intelligence that is intelligent at

some time, though not at others, but from the genuine

Intelligence, which is beautiful on that very account.6

Shall we stop at Intelligence, as a first principle? Orshall we on the contrary still rise above it ? Surely so,

for Intelligence presents itself to us before the first

Principle only because it is, so to speak, located in the

antechamber of the Good. 7 It bears all things within

itself, and manifests them, so that it displays the imageof the Good in manifoldness, while the Good itself

remains in an absolute simple unity.

PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE AND NATURE OFINTELLIGENCE.

3. Let us now consider the Intelligence whichreason tells us is absolute essence and genuine "being,"

and whose existence we have already established in a

different manner. It would seem ridiculous to inquire

whether Intelligence form part of the scale of beings;but there are men who doubt it, or who at least are

disposed to ask for a demonstration that Intelligence

possesses the nature we predicate of it, thatit is

separated (from matter), that it is identical with the es

sences, and that it contains the ideas. This is our

task.

m THE HUMAN WORLD EVERYTHING IS A COMPOSITE OF FORM AND MATTER.

Allthings

that

weconsider to

be essences are composites; nothing is simple or single, either in works of

art, or in the products of nature.8 Works of art, in

deed, contain metal, wood, stone, and are derived fromthese substances only by the labor of the artist, who,

by giving matter its form makes of it a statue, or bed,or house. Among the products of nature, those that



v.9] OF INTELLIGENCE, IDEAS, ESSENCE ;ip5

are compounds or mixtures may be analyzed into the

form impressed on the elements of the compound; so,

for instance, we may in a man, distinguish a soul and

body, and in the body four elements. Since the verymatter of the elements, taken in itself, has no form,

every object seems composed of matter and of some

principle that supplies it with form. 9 So we are led

to ask whence matter derives its form, and to seek

whether the soul is simple, or whether it contains twoparts, one of which plays the parts of matter, and the

other of form,10 so that the first part would be

similar to the form received by the metal of a statue,

and the latter to the principle which produces the formitself.

.THE WORLD-SOUL ALSO IS A COMPOUND OF FORMAND MATTER.

Applying this conception to the universe, we rise to

Intelligence, recognizing therein the demiurgic creator

of the world. It was in receiving from it its shapes bythe intermediation of another principle, the universal

Soul, that the (material) substances became water, air,

earth and fire. On the one hand, the Soul shapes the

four elements of the world;11 on the other, she receives

from Intelligence the (seminal) reasons,12

as the souls

of the artists themselves receive from the arts the

reasons which they work out.13 In Intelligence, there

fore, there is a part which is the form of the soul;

it is

intelligenceconsidered as

shape.There is another

which imparts shape, like the sculptor who gives the

metal the shape of the statue, and which in itself possesses all it gives.

14 Now the (shapes) which the

Intelligence imparts to the soul connect with the truth

as closely as possible, while those which the soul im

parts to the body are only images and appearances.15




WHY OUR ASCENT CANNOT STOP WITH THE SOUL.

4. Why should we not, on arriving at the Soul, stop

there, and consider her the first principle? Because

Intelligence is a power different from the Soul, and

better than the Soul; and what is better must, by its

very nature, precede (the worst). The Stoics16 are

wrong in thinking that it is the Soul which, on reaching

her perfection, begets Intelligence. How could that

which is potential pass into actualization unless there

were some principle that effected that transition? If

this transition were due to chance, it could not have

occurred at all. The first rank must therefore be as

signed to that which is in actualization, which needs

nothing, which is perfect, while imperfect things must

be assignedto the second rank. These

maybe

perfected by the principles that begat them, which, in

respect to them, play a paternal part, perfecting what

they had originally produced that was imperfect.

What is thus produced is matter, as regards the

creating principle, and then becomes perfect, on re

ceiving its form from it. Besides, the Soul is (often)

affected; and we need to discover some thing that is

impassible, without which everything is dissolved bytime; therefore there is need of some principle prior

to the soul. Further, the Soul is in the world; now

there must be something that resides outside of the

world, and which consequently would be superior to

the Soul; for since that which inheres in the world

resides within the body, or matter, if nothing existed

outside of theworld, nothing

would remainpermanent.In this case, the (seminal) reason of man, and all the

other reasons could be neither permanent nor eternal.

The result of all these considerations, as well as of

many others that we could add thereto, is the necessary

assertion of the existence of Intelligence beyond the

Soul.




INTELLIGENCE IS IN ACTUALIZATION BECAUSE ITS

THOUGHT IS IDENTICAL WITH ITS ESSENCEOR EXISTENCE.

5. Taking it in its genuine sense, Intelligence is

not only potential, arriving at being intelligent after

having been unintelligent for otherwise, we would be

forced to seek out some still higher principle but is

in actualization, and is eternal. As it is intelligent by

itself, it is by itself that it thinks what it thinks, andthat it possesses what is possesses. Now since it thinks

of itself and by itself, it itself is what it thinks. If wecould distinguish between its exitsence and its thought,

its"being"

would be unintelligent; it would be poten

tial, not in actualization. Thought, therefore, must

not be separated from its object, although, from sense-

objects, we have become accustomed to conceive of

intelligible entities as distinct from each other.

REASONS, AS ARCHETYPES, MUST HAVE EXISTEDBEFORE STOIC "HABIT," NATURE OR SOUL.

Which then is the principle that acts, that thinks,

and what is the actualization and thought of Intel

ligence, necessary to justify the assertion that it is

what it thinks? Evidently Intelligence, by its merereal existence, thinks beings, and makes them exist;

it therefore is the beings. Indeed, the beings will

either exist outside of it, or within it; and in the latter

case they would have to be identical with it. That theyshould exist outside of Intelligence, is unthinkable; for

where would they be located? They must therefore

exist withinit, and be identical with it. They could

not be in sense-objects, as common people think, be

cause sense-objects could not be the first in any genus.The form which inheres in their matter is only the

representation of existence; now a form which exists

in anything other than itself is put in it by a superior

principle, and is its image. Further, if Intelligence



108 .WORKS 05 PLOTINOS [5

must be the creative power of the universe, it could

not, while creating the universe, think beings as existent in what does not yet exist. Intelligible entities,

therefore, must exist before the world, and cannot be

images of sense-objects, being on the contrary, their

archetypes, and constituting the"being"

of Intelligence.

It might be objected that the (seminal) reasons mightsuffice. These reasons are, no doubt, eternal; and, if

they be eternal and impassible, they must exist within

the Intelligence whose characteristics we have de

scribed, the Intelligence which precedes the"habit,"

17

nature,18 and the soul,

19 because here these entities are

potential.20

INTELLIGENCE IS POSTULATED BY THE GENERALNECESSITIES OF THE WORLD.

Intelligence, therefore, essentially constitutes all

beings; and when Intelligence thinks them, they are

not outside of Intelligence, and neither precede nor

follow it. Intelligence is the first legislator, or rather,

it is the very law of existence. Parmenides21 therefore

was right in saying, "Thought is identical with exist

ence." The knowledge of immaterial things is there

fore identical with those things themselves. That is

why I recognize myself as a being, and why I havereminiscences of intelligible entities. Indeed, none of

those beings is outside of Intelligence, nor is contained

in any location; all of them subsist in themselves as

immutable and indestructible. That is why they reallyare beings. If they were born, or perished, they would

possess existence only in an incidental manner, they

would no longer be beings; it would be the existencethey possessed which would be essence. It is only byparticipation that sense-things are what they are said

to be; the nature that constitutes their substance de

rives its shape from elsewhere, as the metal receives

its shape from the sculptor, and wood from the car-



$.9] OF: INTELLIGENCE, IDEAS, ESSENCE ,109

penter; while the image of art penetrates into the

matter, the art itself remains in its identity, and within

itself possesses the genuine existence of the statue or

of the bed. That is how the bodies* general necessity

of participating in images shows that they are different

from the beings ;for they change, while the entities are

immutable, possess within themselves their own

foundation,and have no need of

existing

in

anyloca

tion, since they have no extension, and since they sub

sist in an intellectual and absolute existence. Again,22

the existence of the bodies needs to be guarded23

bysome other principle, while intelligence, which furnishes

the existence for objects in themselves perishable, has

need of nothing to make itself subsist.

INTELLIGENCE CONTAINS ALL BEINGS GENERA-TIVELY.

6. Thus Intelligence actually constitutes all beings;it contains them all, but not locally; it contains them

as it possesses itself; it is identical with them. All

entities are simultaneously contained within it, and in

it remain distinct, as many kinds of knowledge mayexist within the soul without their number

causing anyconfusion; each of them appears when needed, without

involving the others. If in the soul each thought be an

actualization independent of other thoughts, so muchthe more must Intelligence be all things simultaneously,

with this restriction, however, that each of them is a

special power. Considered in its universality, Intel

ligence contains all entities as the genus contains all

species, as the whole contains all parts. Even the

seminal powers bear the impress of this universality.

Each one, considered in its totality, is a centre which

contains all the parts of the organism in an undivided

condition; nevertheless in it the reason of the eyesdiffers from that of the hands, and this diversity is

manifested by that of the organs begotten (there-




from).24 Each of the powers of the seed, therefore,

is the total unity of the seminal reason when this poweris united to the others which are implied therein. Whatin the seed is corporeal contains matter, as, for in

stance, humidity; but the seminal reason is the entire

form; it is identical with the generative power, a powerwhich itself is the image of a superior power of the

soul. This generative power contained in seeds is25

usually called"nature."

Proceeding from the superiorpowers as light radiates from the fire, it tames and

fashions matter, imparting thereto the seminal reason26

without pushing it, or moving it as by levers.

THERE ARE SCIENTIFIC NOTIONS THAT AREPOSTERIOR, BUT SOME THAT ARE PRIOR.

7. The scientific notions that the soul forms of

sense-objects, by discursive reason, and which shouldrather be called opinions,

27 are posterior to the ob

jects (they deal with) ;and consequently, are no more

than images of them. But true scientific notions re

ceived from intelligence by discursive reasons do not

contain any sense-conceptions. So far as they are

scientific notions, they are the very things of which

theyare the

conceptions; theyreveal the intimate

union of intelligence and thought. Interior Intelligence,

which consists of the primary (natures) possesses it

self intimately, resides within itself since all eternity,

and is an actualization. It does not direct its glancesoutside of itself, because it possesses everything within

itself; it does not acquire, and does not reason to dis

cover things that may not be present to them. Those

are operations characteristic of the soul. Intelligence,

remaining fixed within itself, is all things simultane

ously. Nevertheless, it is not thought which makes

each of them subsist; it is only because intelligence

thought the divinity or movement, for instance, that

the divinity or movement exists.28 When we say that




thoughts are forms, weare mistaken if

thereby we meanthat the intelligible exists only because Intelligence

thinks it. On the contrary, it is only because the in

telligible exists, that Intelligence can think. Other

wise, how would Intelligence come to think the intel

ligible? It cannot meet the intelligible by chance, nor

waste itself in fruitless efforts.

THOUGHT IS THE FORM, SHAPE THE ACTUALIZATION OF THE BEING.

8. Since the thought is something essentially

one ( ? ), the form, which is the object of thought, and

the idea29 are one and the same thing. Which is this

thing? Intelligence and the intellectual"being,"

for

no idea is foreign to intelligence; each formis

intel

ligence, and the whole intelligence is all the forms;

every particular form is a particular intelligence. Like

wise science, taken in its totality, is all the notions it

embraces; every notion is a part of the total science;

it is not separated from the science locally, and exists

potentially in the whole science.30

Intelligence resides

within itself, and by possessing itself calmly, is the

eternal fulness of all things. If we conceived it as

being prior to essence, we would have to say that it

was the action and thought of Intelligence which pro

duced and begat all beings. But as, on the contrary, it

is certain that essence is prior to Intelligence, we

should, within the thinking principle, first conceive the

beings, then actualization and thought, just as (the

nature) of fire is joined by the actualization of thefire, so that beings have innate intelligence (?

43)

as

their actualization. Now essence is an actualization;

therefore essence and intelligence are but a single

actualization, or rather both of them fuse. 31 Conse

quently, they form but a single nature, as beings, the

actualization of essence, and intelligence. In this case




the thought is the form, and the shape is the actualiza

tion of the being. When, however, in thought weseparate essence from Intelligence, we must conceive

one of these principles as prior to the other. The

Intelligence which operates this separation is indeed

different from the essence from which it separates;32

but the Intelligence which is inseparable from essence

and which does not separate thought from essence is

itself essence and all things.

INTELLIGENCE CONTAINS THE UNIVERSAL ARCHETYPE.

9. What then are the things contained within the

unity of Intelligence which we separate in thinking of

them? They must be expressed without disturbing

their rest, and we must contemplate the contents of

Intelligence by a science that somehow remains within

unity. Since this sense-world is an animal which embraces all animals, since it derives both its general and

special existence from a principle different from it

self,33 a principle which, in turn, is derived from in

telligence, therefore intelligence must itself contain

the universal archetype, and must be that intelligible

world of which Plato 34 (well) says; "Intelligence sees

the ideas contained within the existing animal."35 Since

an animal, whose (seminal) reason exists with the

matter fit to receive it, must of course be begotten, so

the mere existence of a nature that is intellectual, all-

powerful, and unhindered by any obstacle since

nothing can interpose between it and the (substance)

capable of receiving the form must necessarily beadorned (or, created) by intelligence, but only in a

divided condition does it reveal the form it receives,

so that, for instance, it shows us on one hand a man,and on the other the sun, while intelligence possesses

everything in unity.




IN THE SENSE-WORLD ONLY THOSE THINGS THATARE FORMS PROCEED FROM INTELLIGENCE.

10. Therefore, in the sense-world, all the things

that are forms proceed from intelligence; those which

are not forms do not proceed therefrom. That is,in

the intelligible world we do not find any of the things

that are contrary to nature, any more than we find

what is contrary to the arts in the arts themselves.Thus the seminal reason does not contain the defects,

such as limping would be in a body. Congenital lame

ness is due to the reason s failure to dominate matter,

while accidental lameness is due to deterioration of

the form (idea? ).

NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE DERIVED FROM

THE CATEGORIES IN THE INTELLIGIBLE.

The qualities that are natural, quantities, numbers,

magnitudes, states, actions and natural experiences,

movements and recuperations, either general or par

ticular, are among the contents of the intelligible world,

where time is replaced by eternity,36 and space is re

placed by the "telescoping"of intelligible entities (that

are within each other). As all entities are together in

the intelligible world, whatever entity you select (by

itself) is intellectual and living "being," identity and

difference, movement and rest;37

it is what moves, and

what is at rest; it is"being,"

and quality; that is, it is

all. There every essence is in actualization, instead

of merely being in potentiality; consequently it is not

separated from quality.

THE INTELLIGIBLE WORLD FAILS TO CONTAINEARTHLY IMPERFECTIONS.

Does the intelligible world contain only what is

found in the sense-world, or does it contain anything

additional? .... Let us consider the arts, in this




respect. To begin with, the intelligible world does not

contain any imperfection. Evils here below comefrom lack, privation, omission; it is a state of matter,

or of anything similar to matter, which failed to be

completely assimilated.38

SOME ARTS ARE PURELY EARTHLY; OTHERS,LIKE MUSIC, INTELLIGIBLE.

11. Let us therefore consider the arts and their

products. Unless as represented within human reason,

we cannot refer to the intelligible world arts of

imitation such as painting, sculpture, dancing, or act

ing, because they are born here below, take sense-

objects as models, representing their forms, motions,

and visible proportions.39

If, however, we possess a

faculty which, by studying the beauties offered by the

symmetry of animals, considers the general character

istics of this symmetry, it must form part of the intel

lectual power which, on high, contemplates universal

symmetry. Music, however, which studies rhythm and

harmony, is, so far as it studies what is intelligible in

these things, the image of the music that deals with

intelligible rhythm.

THERE ARE MANY AUXILIARY ARTS WHICH HELPTHE PROGRESS OF NATURE.

The* arts which produce sense-objects, such as archi

tecture and carpentry, have their principles in the in

telligible world, and participate in wisdom, so far as

they make use of certain proportions. But as they

apply these proportions to sense-objects, they cannot

wholly be referred to the intelligible world, unless in

so far as they are contained within human reason. Thecase is similar with agriculture, which assists the growthof plants; medicine, which increases health, and (gym

nastics) which supplies the body with strength as well

as vigor,40 for on high there is another Power, another



v.9] OF INTELLIGENCE, IDEAS, ESSENCE llS

Health, from which all living organisms derive theirneeded vigor.

OTHER ARTS ARE INTELLIGIBLE WHEN APPLIEDTO THE INTELLIGIBLE.

Last, whenever rhetoric, strategy, private and public

finance and politics weave beauty in their deeds, and

they glance above, they (discover) that they have

added to their science a contribution from the intellig

ible science.

The science of geometry, however, which deals

(wholly) with intelligible entities, must be referred to

the intelligible world. So also with philosophy, which

occupies the first rank among sciences because it

studies essence. This is all we have to say about arts

and theirproducts.

THE INTELLIGIBLE WORLD CONTAINS ONLY UNIVERSAL IDEAS; PARTICULARITIES ARE DERIVED

FROM MATTER.

12. If the intelligible world contains the idea of

Man, it must also contain that of the reasonable man,and of the artist; and consequently the idea of the arts

that are

begotten by Intelligence.

We must therefore

insist that the intelligible world contains the ideas of

the universals, the idea of Man as such, and not, for

instance, that of Socrates. Still we shall have to decide

whether the intelligible world does not also contain the

idea of the individual man, that is, of the man considered

with the things that differ in each individual; for one

may have a Roman nose and the other a pug nose.

These differences are indeed implied within the ideaof man, just as there are differences within the idea

of animal. But the differences between a Roman or

a snub nose are derived from matter. Likewise, amidst

the varieties of colors, some are contained within the

seminal reason, while others are derived from matter

and space.




BESIDES IDEAS OF INDIVIDUAL SOULS AND INTEL

LIGENCE, THE INTELLIGIBLE WORLD CONTAINSTHE SOUL ITSELF AND INTELLIGENCE ITSELF.

13. It remains for us to study whether the intel

ligible world contains only what is in the sense-world,or whether we should distinguish from the individual

soul the Soul itself, from the particular intelligence,

Intelligence itself, as we have above distinguished the

particular man from Man himself. We should not

consider all things here below as images of archetypes,for instance, the soul of a man as the image of the

Soul herself. Only degrees of dignity differentiate souls;

but these souls are not the Soul itself. As the Soul

itself exists really, it must also contain a certain wis

dom, justice and science, which are not images of

wisdom, justice, and intelligible science, as sense-objectsare images of intelligible entities, but which are these

very entities located here below in entirely different

conditions of existence; for they are not locally cir

cumscribed. Therefore when the soul issues from the

body, she preserves these things within herself; for the

sense-world exists only in a determinate place, while

the intelligible world exists everywhere; therefore all

that the soul contains here below is also in the intel

ligible world. Consequently if, by "sense-objects" we

really mean "visible" things, then indeed the intel

ligible world contains entities not present in this sense-

world. If, on the contrary, we include within the

"sense-world" the soul and all she implies, then all

things that are above are present here below also.

THE SUPREME BEING ENTIRELY ONE DOES NOTEXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE MANIFOLD.

14. Can we identify the nature that contains all

the intelligibles (Intelligence) with the supreme Prin

ciple? Impossible, because the supreme Principle must




be essentially one, and simple, while essences form amultitude. But as these essences form a multitude, weare forced to explain how this multitude, and all these

essences can exist. How can (the single) Intelligence

be all these things? Whence does it proceed? This

we shall have to study elsewhere.41

THE SOUL RECEIVES ACCIDENTS FROM MATTER,BUT DEFECTS ARE NOT IN THE INTELLIGIBLE.

It may further be asked whether the intelligible

world contains the ideas of objects which are derived

from decay, which are harmful or disagreeable, such

as, for instance, mud or excreta. We answer that all

the things that universal Intelligence receives from the

First are excellent. Among them are not found ideas

of those dirty and vile objects mentioned above; In

telligence does not contain them. But though receivingfrom Intelligence ideas, the soul receives from matter

other things, among which may be found the above-

mentioned accidents. Besides, a more thorough answer

to this question must be sought for in our book where

we explain"How

the Multitude of Ideas Proceeds fromthe One."42

NOT ALL EARTHLY ENTITIES HAVE CORRESPONDING IDEAS.

In conclusion, the accidental composites in which

Intelligence does not share and which are formed by a

fortuitous complex of sense-objects, have no ideas cor

responding to them in the intelligible world. Thingsthat proceed from decay are produced only because the

Soul is unable to produce anything better in this case;

otherwise she would have rather produced some objectmore agreeing with nature; she therefore produceswhat she can.




EVEN THE ARTS AREDEPENDENT ON THE SOUL.

All the arts concerned with things natural to manare contained within the ideas of Man himself. TheArt that is universal is prior to the other arts; but Art

is posterior to the Soul herself, or rather, to the life

that is in Intelligence before becoming soul, and which,on becoming soul, deserves to be called the Soul herself.

1 As thought Plato, in the

Phaedo, C81. 2 See i. 6.8. 3 See

i. 3.1. 4 See i. 3. 5 See i.

6.2 6 See i. 6.6 ? See i. 6.9,

and the Philebus of Plato,

C64. 8 As suggested in the

Phaedo of Plato. 9 See ii. 4.6.

10 The rational soul and intel

ligence, see iii. 9.5. n See ii.

9.12; iv. 4.14. 12 See ii. 3.17.

18; ii. 9.2, 3; vi. 4.9. 13Apun on "reason, or "logos," i.

6.2; ii. 3.16; ii. 4.3; ii. 6.2; ii.

7.3. 14 See iv. 4.1012. is Farfrom the truth; see iii. 8.3. 7.

16Stoics, see iv. 7.8. " Or

Stoic form of inorganfic objects.18

The form of lower livingbeings.

i9 The form of human

nature. 20 See iv. 7.14. 21 Par-

menides, see v. 1.8.22 As

Plato hints in his Cratylos, C50,

by a pun between "soma" and

"sozesthai.

*

23 The later theo

logical "saved."24 See Aris

totle, de Gen. i. 18.25 By

Stoics. 26 See iii. 8.1-3. 27 See

v. 5.1. 28 See v. 1.4. 29 InGreek a pun on "eidos" and

"idea."30 See iv. 9.5.

31 See

iii. 9.1. 32 See iii. 9.1. 33 Theuniversal Soul. 34 Timaeus,C39. 35 See iii. 9.1. 36 See iii.

7.10. 37 See ii. 7.2. 38 Toform, see i. 6.2 39 As thought

Plato, in his Republic, x. 40 As

thought Plato in Gorgias,C464. 4i

vi. 7.42

vi< 7.

DIFFICULT PASSAGES.

29 This sentence might well

be translated as follows:

"When therefore thought

(meets) the essentially one,

the latter is the form, and theformer the idea." While this

version seems more literal, it

makes no connected sense

with what follows. 43Or, "so

that it may contain the intel

ligence which is one, as its

own actualization."



iv.8] DESCENT OF SOUL INTO BODY 119

FOURTH ENNEAD, BOOK EIGHTH.

Of the Descent of the Soul Into the Body.1

THE EXPERIENCE OF ECSTASY LEADS TOQUESTIONS.

1. On waking from the slumber of the body to re

turn to myself, and on turning my attention from

exterior things so as to concentrate it on myself, I often

observe an alluring beauty, and I become conscious ofan innate nobility. Then I live out a higher life, and I

experience atonement with the divinity. Fortifying

myself within it,I arrive at that actualization which

raises me above the intelligible. But if, after this

sojourn with the divinity, I descend once more from

Intelligence to the exercise of my reasoning powers, I

am wont to askmyself

how I ever couldactually again

descend, and how my soul ever could have entered

into a body, since, although she actually abides in the

body, she stillpossesses

within herself all the perfec

tion I discover in her.

HERACLITUS, THE ORIGINATOR OF THESE QUESTIONS, ANSWERS THEM OBSCURELY.

Heraclitus, who recommends this research, asserts

that "there are necessary changes of contraries into

each other;"he speaks of "ascenscions" and of a

"descent," says that it is "a rest to change, a fatigue

to continue unremittingly in the same kinds of work,

and to be overwrought. He thus reduces us to conjee-



120: WORKS OF PLOTINOS [6

tures because he does not explain himself definitely;

and he would even force us to ask how he himself cameto discover what he propounds.

EMPEDOCLES, AS A POET, TELLS OF PYTHAGOREANMYTHS.

Empedocles teaches that "it is a law for souls that

have sinned to fall down here below;" and that "he

himself, having withdrawn from the divinity, camedown to the earth to become the slave of furious dis

cord." It would seem that he limited himself to ad

vancing the ideas that Pythagoras and his followers

generally expressed by symbols, both on this and other

subjects. Besides Empedocles is obscure because he

uses the language of poetry.

PLATO SAYS MANY CONTRADICTORY THINGS THATARE BEAUTIFUL AND TRUE.

Last, we have the divine Plato, who has said so

many beautiful things about the soul. In his dialogueshe often spoke of the descent of the soul into the body,so that we have the right to expect from him some

thing clearer. Unfortunately, he is not always suf

ficiently in agreement with himself to enable one to

follow his thought. In general, he depreciates cor

poreal things; he deplores the dealings between the

soul and the body; insists2

that the soul is chained

down to it, and that she is buried in it as in a tomb.

He attaches much importance to the maxim taught in

the

mysteries

that the soul here below is as in a prison.3

What Plato calls the "cavern"4 and Empedocles calls

the"grotto,"

means no doubt the sense-world.5 To

break her chains, and to issue from the cavern, means

the soul s6

rising to the intelligible world. In the

Phaedrus,7 Plato asserts that the cause of the fall of

the soul is the loss of her wings ;that after having once




more ascended on high, she is brought back here below

by the periods;8 that there are souls sent down into

this world by judgments, fates, conditions, and neces

sity; still, at the same time, he finds fault with the

"descent" of the soul into the body. But, speakingof the universe in the Timaeus,

9 he praises the world,

and calls it a blissful divinity. He states that the

demiurgic creator, being good, gave it a soul to make

it intelligent, because without the soul, the universecould not have been as intelligent as it ought to have

been. 10 Consequently, the purpose of the introduc

tion of the universal Soul into the world, and similarly

of each of our souls was only to achieve the perfection

of the world; for it was necessary for the sense-world

to contain animals equal in kind and numbers to those

contained in the intelligible world.

QUESTIONS RAISED BY PLATO S THEORIES.

2. Plato s theories about the soul lead us to ask

how, in general, the soul has, by her nature, been led

to enter into relations with the body. Other questionsarise: What is the nature of the world where the soul

lives thus, either voluntarily or necessarily, or in anyother way? Does the Demiurge11 act without meet

ing any obstacle, or is it with him as with our souls ?

HUMAN BODIES ARE MORE DIFFICULT TO MANAGETHAN THE WORLD-BODY.

To begin with, our souls, charged with the adminis

tration of bodies less perfect than the world, had to

penetrate within them profoundly in order to managethem

;for the elements of these bodies tend to scatter,

and to return to their original location, while, in the

universe, all things are naturally distributed in their

proper places.12

Besides, our bodies demand an active

and vigilant foresight, because, by the surrounding




objects they are exposed to many accidents; for they

always have a crowd of needs, as they demand continual protection against the dangers that threaten

them. 13 But the body of the world is complete and

perfect. It is self-sufficient; it has nothing to suffer

contrary to its nature; and consequently, it (acts) ona mere order of the universal Soul. That is why the

universal Soul can remain impassible, feeling no need,

remaining in the disposition desired by her own nature.That is why Plato says that, when our soul dwells with

this perfect Soul, she herself becomes perfect, soaring in

the ethereal region, and governing the whole world.14

So long as a human soul does not withdraw from the

(universal) Soul to enter into a body, and to belongto some individual, she easily administers the world, in

the same manner, and together with the universal

Soul. Communicating to the body essence and perfection is therefore, for the soul, not an unmixed evil;

because the providential care granted to an inferior

nature does not hinder him who grants it from himself

remaining in a state of perfection.

HOW THE TWO-FOLD SOUL EXERTS A TWO-FOLD

PROVIDENCE.

In the universe there are, indeed, two kinds of providences.

15 The first Providence regulates everything in

a royal manner, without performing any actions, or ob

serving the details. The second, operating somewhatlike an artisan, adjusts its creative power to the inferior

nature of creatures by getting in contact with them. 16

Now as the divine Soul (or, the principal power, 17

always administers the whole world in the first or regal

way, dominating the world by her superiority, and by

injecting into the world her lowest power (nature), wecould not accuse the divinity of having given a bad

place to the universal Soul. Indeed, this universal Soul




was never deprived of her natural power, possessing it

always, because this power is not contrary to her being,

possessing it uninterruptedly from all eternity.

STAR-SOULS, LIKE UNINCARNATE SOULS, GOVERNTHE WORLD UNTROUBLEDLY.

(Plato) further states that the relation of the souls

of the stars to their bodies is the same as that of the

universal Soul to the universe, 18 where he makes the

stars participate in the movements of the universal

Soul. He thus grants to those souls the blessedness

which is suitable to them. The intercourse of the soul

with the body is usually blamed for two things: be

cause it hinders the soul from busying herself with the

conceptions of intelligence, and then because it ex

poses her to agreeable or painful sensations which fill

her with desires. Now neither of these two results

affect the soul that has not entered into a body, and

which does not depend thereon by belonging to some

particular individual. Then, on the contrary, she

possesses the body of the universe, which has no fault,

no need, which can cause her neither fears nor desires,

because she has

nothingto fear. Thus no

anxietyever forces her to descend to terrestrial objects, or to

distract herself from her happy and sublime contem

plation. Entirely devoted to divine things, she governsthe world by a single power, whose exercise involves

no anxiety.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HUMAN AND COSMIC

INCARNATION.3. Consider now the human soul which19 under

goes numberless ills while in the body, eking out a

miserable existence, a prey to griefs, desires, fears,

sufferings of all kinds, for whom the body is a tomb,and the sense-world a "cave" or

"grotto."This dif-




ference of opinions about the condition of the universal

Soul and the human soul is not contradictory, because

these two souls do not have the same reasons for

descent into a body. To begin with, the location of

thought, that we call the intelligible world,20 contains

not only the entire universal Intelligence, but also the

intellectual powers, and the particular intelligences

comprised within the universal Intelligence; since there

is

not only a single intelligence, but a simultaneouslysingle and plural intelligence. Consequently, it must

also have contained a single Soul, and a plurality of

souls; and it was from the single Soul, that the multiple

particular and different souls had to be born, as from

one and the same genus are derived species that are

both superior and inferior, and more or less intellectual.

Indeed, in the intelligible world, there is, on one hand,

the (universal) Intelligence which, like some great

animal, potentially contains the other intelligences.

On the other hand, are the individual intelligences,

each of which possess in actualization what the former

contains potentially. We may illustrate by a living

city that would contain other living cities. The soiil

of the universal City would be more perfect and

powerful; but nothing would hinder the souls of theother cities from being of the same kind. Similarly, in

the universal Fire, there is on one hand a great fire,

and on the other small fires, while the universal Beingis the being of the universal Fire, or rather, is the

source from which the being of the universal Fire

proceeds.

THE RATIONAL SOUL POSSESSES ALSO ANINDIVIDUALITY.

The function of the rational soul is to think, but

she does not limit herself to thinking. Otherwise there

would be no difference between her and intelligence.

Besides her intellectual characteristics, the soul s^ char-




acteristic

nature, byvirtue of which she does not re

main mere intelligence, has a further individual func

tion, such as is possessed by every other being;. By

raising her glance to what is superior to her, she thinks;

by bringing them down to herself, she preserves her

self; by lowering them to what is inferior to her, she

adorns it, administers it, and governs it. All these

things were not to remain immovable in the intelligible

world, to permit of a successive issue of varied beings,

which no doubt are less perfect than that which pre

ceded them, but which, nevertheless, exist necessarily

during the persistence of the Principle from which they

proceed.

INCARNATE SOULS WEAKEN BECAUSE THEY CONTEMPLATE THE INDIVIDUAL.

4. There are individual souls which, in their con

version21 towards the principle from which they pro

ceed, aspire to the intelligible world, and which also

exercise their power on inferior things, just as light,

which does not disdain to throw its rays down to us

though remaining suspended to the sun on high. These

souls must remain sheltered from all suffering so long

as in the intelligible world they remain together with

the universal Soul. They must besides, in heaven,

share with it the administration of the world; like

kings who, being colleagues of the great King of the

universe, share the government with Him, without

themselves descending from their thrones, without

ceasing to occupy a place as elevated as He. But when

they pass from this state in which they live with theuniversal Soul to a particular and independent exist

ence, when they seem weary of dwelling with another,

then each of them returns to what belongs to her

individually. Now when a soul has done that for a

long while, when she withdraws from the universal

Soul, and distinguishes herself therefrom, when she




ceases to keep her glances directed towards the intel

ligible world; then, isolating herself in her individual

existence, she weakens, and finds herself overwhelmed

with a crowd of cares, because she directs her glance

at something individual. Having therefore separatedherself from the universal Soul as well as from the

other souls that remain united thereto, and having at

tached herself to an individual body, and concentrating

herself exclusively on this object, which is subjectedto the destructive action of all other beings, she ceases

to govern the whole to administer more carefully a

part, the care of which forces her to busy herself, and

mingle with external things, to be not only present in

the body, but also to interpenetrate it.

THIS PROCESS EXPLAINS THE CLASSIC EXPRES

SIONS ABOUT HER CONDITION.

Thus, in the common expression, she has lost her

wings, and is chained by the bonds of the body, be

cause she gave up the calm existence she enjoyed whenwith the universal Soul she shared the administration

of the world; for when she was above she spent a

much happier life. The fallen soul is therefore chained

or imprisoned, obliged to have recourse to the sensesbecause she cannot first make use of intelligence. She

is, as it is said, buried in a tomb, or cavern. But byher conversion towards thought, she breaks her bonds,

she returns upwards towards higher regions, when,

starting from the indications of reminiscence she rises

to the contemplation of the essences;22 for even after

her fall she

always preserves something superior

to

the body.

SOULS AS AMPHIBIANS.

Souls therefore are necessarily amphibians;23 since

they alternately live in the intelligible world, and in

the sense-world; staying longer in the intelligible world




when they can remain united to supreme Intelligence

more permanently, or staying longer or preponder-

atingly here below when nature or destiny imposes on

them a contrary fate. That is the secret meaning of

Plato s words24to the effect that the divinity divides

the seeds of the souls formed by a second mixture in

the cup, and that He separates them into (two) parts.

He also adds that they must necessarily fall into genera

tion after having been divided into a definite number.Plato s statement that the divinity sowed the souls,

25

as well as the divinity s address to the other deities,

must be taken figuratively. For, in reference to the

things contained in the universe, this implies that they

are begotten or produced; for successive enumeration

and description implies an eternal begetting, an1 that

thoseobjects

existeternally

in their

presentstate.

SOULS DESCENDING TO HELP ARE SENT BY GOD.

5. Without any inherent contradiction it maytherefore be asserted either,

26that the souls are sowed

into generation, that they descend here below for the

perfection of the universe, or that they are shut up in

a cavern as the result of a divine punishment, that their

fall is simultaneously an effect of their will and of

necessity as necessity does not exclude voluntariness

and that they are in evil so long as they are incar

nate in bodies. Again, as Empedocles says, they mayhave withdrawn from the divinity, and have lost their

way, and have committed some fault that they are

expiating; or,as

says Heraclitus,that rest consists in

flight (from heaven, and descent here below), and

that the descent of souls is neither entirely voluntary,nor involuntary. Indeed, no being ever falls volun

tarily; but as it is by his own motion that he descends

to lower things, and reaches a less happy condition,

it may be said that he bears the punishment of his




conduct. Besides, as it is by an eternal law of nature

that this being acts and suffers in that manner, wemay, without contradiction or violence to the truth,

assert that the being who descends from his rank to

assist some lower thing is sent by the divinity.27 In

spite of any number of intermediate parts (which

separate) a principle from its lower part, the latter

may still be ascribed to the former. 28

THE TWO POSSIBLE FAULTS OF THE SOUL.

Here there are two possible faults for the soul. Thefirst consists in the motive that determines her to

descend. The second is the evil she commits after

having descended here below. The first fault is ex

piated by the very condition of the soul after she has

descended here below. The punishment of the latterfault, if not too serious, is to pass into other bodies

more or less promptly according to the judgment de

livered about her deserts and we speak of a"judg

ment" to show that it is the consequence of the divine

law. If however the perversity of the soul passes all

measure, she undergoes, under the charge of guardiansin charge of her chastisement, the severe punishmentsshe has incurred.

PROMPT FLIGHT HERE BELOW LEAVES THE SOULUNHARMED BY HER STAY HERE.

Thus, although the soul have a divine nature (or

"being"), though she originate in the intelligible

world, she enters into a body. Being a lower divinity,

she descends here below by a voluntary inclination, for

the purpose of developing her power, and to adorn

what is below her. If she flee promptly from here

below, she does not need to regret having become ac

quainted with evil, and knowing the nature of vice,29

nor having had the opportunity of manifesting her




faculties,and to manifest her activities and deeds.

Indeed, the faculties of the soul would be useless if

they slumbered continuously in incorporeal being with

out ever becoming actualized. The soul herself would

ignore what she possesses if her faculties did not mani

fest by procession, for everywhere it is the actualization

that manifests the potentiality. Otherwise, the latter

would be completely hidden and obscured; or rather,

it would not really exist, and would not possess any

reality. It is the variety of sense-effects which illus

trates the greatness of the intelligible principle, whose

nature publishes itself by the beauty of its works.

CONTINUOUS PROCESSION NECESSARY TO THESUPREME.

6. Unity was not to exist alone; for if unity remained self-enclosed, all things would remain hidden

in unity without having any form, and no beings would

achieve existence. Consequently, even if constituted

by beings born of unity, plurality would not exist,

unless the inferior natures, by their rank destined to

be souls, issued from those beings by the way of procession. Likewise, it was not sufficient for souls to

exist, they also had to reveal what they were capableof begetting. It is likewise natural for each essence

to produce something beneath it, to draw it out from

itself by a development similar to that of a seed, a

development in which an indivisible principle proceedsto the production of a sense-object, and where that

which precedes remains in its own place at the same

time as it begets that which follows by an inexpressible power, which is essential to intelligible natures.

Now as this power was not to be stopped or circum

scribed in its actions by jealousy, there was need of a

continuous procession until, from degree to degree,

all things had descended to the extreme limits of what

was possible;30 for it is the characteristic of an inex-




haustible power to communicate all its gifts to every

thing, and not to permit any of them to be disinherited,

since there is nothing which hinders any of them from

participating in the nature of the Good in the measure

that it is capable of doing so. Since matter has existed

from all eternity, it was impossible that from the time

since it existed, it should not participate in that which

communicates goodness to all things according to their

receptivity thereof. 31 If the generation of matter werethe necessary consequence of anterior principles, still

it must not be entirely deprived of the good by its

primitive impotence, when the cause which gratuitously

communicated"being"

to it remained self-enclosed.

SENSE-OBJECTS ARE NECESSARY AS REVEALERS OFTHE ETERNAL.

The excellence, pov/er and goodness of intelligible

(essences) are therefore revealed by sense-objects;

and there is an eternal connection between intelligible

(entities) that are self-existent, and sense-objects,

which eternally derive their existence therefrom by

participation, and which imitate intelligible nature to

the extent of their ability.

THE SOUL S NATURE IS OF AN INTERMEDIATE KIND.

7. As there are two kinds of being (or, existence),

one of sensation, and the other intelligible, it is prefer

able for the soul to live in the intelligible world; never

theless, as a result of her nature, it is necessary for

her also to participate in sense-affairs. 32 Since she

occupies onlyan intermediate

rank,she must not feel

wronged at not being the best of beings.33

Thoughon one hand her condition be divine, on the other she

is located on the limits of the intelligible world, be

cause of her affinity for sense-nature. She causes this

nature to participate in her powers, and she even re

ceives something therefrom, when, instead of managing




the body without compromising her own security, she

permits herself to be carried away by her own inclination to penetrate profoundly within

it, ceasing her com

plete union with the universal Soul. Besides, the soul

can rise above the body after having learned to feel

how happy one is to dwell on high, by the experienceof things seen and suffered here below, and after

having appreciated the true Good by the comparison of

contraries. Indeed the knowledge of the good becomesclearer by the experience of evil, especially amongsouls which are not strong enough to know evil before

having experienced it.34

THE PROCESSION OF INTELLIGENCE IS AN EXCURSION DOWNWARDS AND UPWARDS.

The procession of intelligence consists in descendingto things that occupy the lowest rank, and which havean inferior nature,

35 for Intelligence could not rise

to the superior Nature. Obliged to act outside of

itself, and not being able to remain self-enclosed, bya necessity and by a law of its nature, intelligence

must advance unto the soul where it stops; then, after

having communicated of itself to that which immedi

ately follows it, intelligence must return to the intel

ligible world. Likewise, the soul has a double action

in her double relation with what is below and above

her. By her first action, the soul manages the body to

which she is united; by the second, she contemplatesthe intelligible entities. These alternatives work out,

for individual souls, with the course of time; and finally

there occurs a conversion which brings them back from

the lower to the higher natures.

THE UNIVERSAL SOUL, HOWEVER, IS NOT DIS

TURBED BY THE URGENCIES BELOW HER.

The universal Soul, however, does not need to busyherself with troublesome functions, and remains out




of the reach of evils. She considers what is below her

in a purely contemplative manner, while at the sametime remaining related to what is above her. She is

therefore enabled simultaneously on one side to re

ceive, and on the other to give, since her nature com

pels her to relate herself closely with the objects of

sense. 36

THE SOUL DOES NOT ENTIRELYENTER INTO THEBODY.

8. Though I should set myself in opposition to

popular views, I shall set down clearly what seems to

me the true state of affairs. Not the whole soul enters

into the body. By her higher part, she ever remains

united to the intelligible world; as, by her lower part,

she remains united to the sense-world. If this lower

part dominates, or rather, if it be dominated (by

sensation) and troubled, it hinders us from being con

scious of what the higher part of the soul contem

plates. Indeed that which is thought impinges on our

consciousness only in case it descends to us, and

is felt. In general, we are conscious of what goes on

in every part of the soul only when it is felt by the

entire soul. For instance, appetite, which is the actualization of lustful desire, is by us cognized only whenwe perceive it by the interior sense or by discursive

reason, or by both simultaneously. Every soul has a

lower part turned towards the body, and a higher part

turned towards divine Intelligence. The universal Soul

manages the universe by her lower part without anykind of trouble, because she governs her body not as

we do by any reasoning, but by intelligence, and con

sequently in a manner entirely different from that

adopted by art. The individual souls, each of whomadministers a part of the universe,

37also have a part

that rises above their body; but they are distracted

from thought by sensation, and by a perception of a




number of things which are contrary to nature, andwhich come to trouble them, and afflict them. Indeed,

the body that they take care of constitutes but a partof the universe, is incomplete, and is surrounded byexterior objects. That is why it has so many needs,

why it desires luxuriousness, and why it is deceived

thereby. On the contrary, the higher part of the soul

is insensible to the attraction of these transitory

pleasures, and leads an undisturbed life.

iSee iv. 3.9-17. * In the

Cratylus, C400. 3 As in the

Phaedo, C62. 4Republic, vii,

C514. 5 See Jamblichus, Cave

of the Nymphs, 8. 6 Proces

sion, or rising.7 C246. 8 Of

the universe. 9 C34. 10 Tim-

aeus, C30. n The Creator, whois the universal Soul. 12 See

iv. 3.9-11. !3See iv. 3.17.14 As

thought Plato in his Phaedrus,

C246. 15 The First belongs to

the principal power of the uni

versal Soul, the second to its

natural and plant power, see iii,

8.1 and iv. 4.13. 1G See iv. 4.

13. i? See - 3.18. ^As in

the Timaeus, C42. 19iv. 8.1.

20 See iv. 2.2.21 See iv. 3.6.

7. 22 AS thought Plato in his

Phaedrus, C249 and Phaedo,C72. 23 That lead an alternate

or double life.24 jn his Tim

aeus, C42, 69. 25 In the stars.26 As does Plato, see iv. 8.1.

27 As a messenger, see iv. 3.12.

13. 2 8 See ii. 9.2. 29 Without

having given herself up to it.

30 See i. 8.7. 3 1 That is, of

form, ii. 4.4. 32 See iv. 6.3.

33 See iii. 2.8. 34 See iv. 8.5.

35 See iv. 3.18. 36 See ii. 9.2.

37 That is, the body to whichshe is united.




FIFTH ENNEAD, BOOK FOUR.

How What is After the First Proceeds Therefrom; ofthe One.

NECESSITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE FIRST.

1. Everything that exists after the First is derived

therefrom, either directly or mediately, and constitutes

a series of different orders such that the second can be

traced back to the First, the third to the second, andso forth. Above all beings there must be Something

simple and different from all the rest which would

exist in itself, and which, without ever mingling with

anything else, might nevertheless preside over every

thing, which might really be the One, and not that

deceptive unity which is only the attribute of essence,

and which would be a principle superior even to being,

unreachable by speech, reason, or science. For if it

be, not completely simple, foreign to all complexityand composition, and be not really one, it could not

be a principle. It is sovereignly absolute only because

it is simple and first. For what is not first, is in need

of superior things; what is not simple has need of beingconstituted by simple things. The Principle of every

thing must therefore be one and only.If it

were admitted that there was a second principle of that kind,

both would constitute but a single one. For we donot say that they are bodies, nor that the One andFirst is a body; for every body is composite and

begotten, and consequently is not a principle; for a

principle cannot be begotten.1

Therefore, since the



v.4] OF PROCESSION, OF THE ONE 135

principle

of everything cannot be corporeal, because

it must be essentially one, it must be the First.

THE FIRST NECESSARILY BEGETS A SECOND. WHICHMUST BE PERFECT.

If something after the One exist, it is no more the

simple One, but the multiple One. Whence is this

derived? Evidently from the First, for it could notbe supposed that it came from chance; that would be

to admit that the First is not the principle of every

thing. How then is the multiple One derived from

the First? If the First be not only perfect, but the

most perfect, if it be the first Power, it must surely,

in respect to power, be superior to all the rest, and

the[other powers must merely

imitate it to the limit

of their ability^ Now we see that all that arrives to

perfection cannot unfruitfully remain in itself, but

begets and produces. Not only do beings capable of

choice, but even those lacking reflection or soul have

a tendency to impart to other beings, what is in them;

as, for instance, fire emits heat, snow emits cold; and

plant-juices (dye and soak) into whatever they hap

pen to touch. All things in nature imitate the First

principle by seeking to achieve immortality by pro

creation, and by manifestation of their qualities. Howthen would He who is sovereignly perfect, who is the

supreme Good, remain absorbed in Himself, as if a

sentiment of jealousy hindered Him from communi

cating Himself, or as if He were powerless, though

He is the power of everything? How then would Heremain principle of everything? He must therefore

beget something, just as what He begets must in turn

beget. There must therefore be something beneath

the First. Now this thing (which is immediately be

neath the First), must be very venerable, first because

it begets everything else, then because it is be-




gotten by the First, and because it must, as being the

Second, rank and surpass everything else.

INTELLIGENCE CANNOT BE THE FIRST, AND RANKSALL ELSE.

2. If the generating principle were intelligence,

what it begot would have to be inferior to intelligence,

and nevertheless

approximateit, and resemble it more

than anything else. Now as the generating principleis superior to intelligence, the first begotten thing is

necessarily intelligence. Why, however, is the gen

erating principle not intelligence? Because the act of

intelligence is thought, and thought consists in seeingthe intelligible; for it is only by its conversion towards

it that intelligence achieves a complete and perfect

existence. In itself, intelligence is only an indeterminate power to see; only by contemplation of the

intelligible does it achieve the state of being determined.

This is the reason of the saying, The ideas and num

bers, that is, intelligence, are born from the indefinite

doubleness, and the One." Consequently, instead of

being simple, intelligence is multiple. It is composedof several elements; these are doubtless

intelligible,but what intelligence sees is none the less multiple. In

any case, intelligence is simultaneously the object

thought, and the thinking subject; it is therefore alreadydouble.

THE FIRST AND SECOND AS HIGHER AND LOWERINTELLIGIBLE ENTITIES.

But besides this intelligible (entity, namely, intel

ligence), there is another (higher) intelligible (the

supreme Intelligible, the First). In what way does

the intelligence, thus determined, proceed from the

(First) Intelligible? The Intelligible abides in itself,

and has need of nothing else, while there is a need



v.4] OF PROCESSION, OF THE ONE 137

ofsomething

else in that which sees and thinks(that

is, that which thinks has need of contemplating the

supreme Intelligible). But even while remainingwithin Himself, the Intelligible (One) is not devoid of

sentiment; all things belong to Him, are in Him, and

with Him. Consequently, He has the conception of

Himself, a conception which implies consciousness, and

which consists in eternal repose, and in a thought, but

in a thought different from that of intelligence. If

He begets something while remaining within Himself,

He begets it precisely when He is at the highest point

of individuality. It is therefore by remaining in His

own state that He begets what He begets; He procreates by individualizing. Now as He remains intel

ligible, what He begets cannot be anything else than

thought; therefore thought, by existing, and by thinking the Principle whence it is derived (for it could

not think any other object), becomes simultaneously

intelligence and intelligible; but this second intelligible

differs from the first Intelligible from which it pro

ceeds, and of which it is but the image and the re

flection.

THE SECOND IS THE ACTUALIZATION OF THE POTENTIALITY OF THE FIRST.

But how is an actualization begotten from that self-

limited (intelligible) ? We shall have to draw a dis

tinction between an actualization of being, and an actu

alization out of the being of each thing (actualized

being, and actualization emanating from being).

Actualized being cannot differ from being, for it is

being itself. But the actualization emanating from

being and everything necessarily has an actualization

of this kind differs from what produces it. It is as

if with fire: there is a difference between the heat

which constitutes its being, and the heat which radiates

exteriorly, while the fire interiorly realizes the actual-




ization which constitutes its being, and which makes it

preserve its nature. Here also, and far more so, the

First remains in His proper state, and yet simultan

eously, by His inherent perfection, by the actualization

which resides in Him, has been begotten the actual

ization which, deriving its existence from so great a

power, nay, from supreme Power, has arrived at, or

achieved essence and being. As to the First, He was

above being; for He was the potentiality of all things,

already being all things.

HOW THE FIRST IS ABOVE ALL BEING.

If this (actualization begotten by the First, this ex

ternal actualization) be all things, then that (One) is

above all things, and consequently above being. If

then (this external actualization) be all things, and be

before all things, it does not occupy the same rank

as the remainder (of all other things) ;and must, in

this respect also, be superior to being, and consequentlyalso to intelligence; for there is Something superior to

intelligence. Essence is not, as you might say, dead;it is not devoid of life or thought; for intelligence and

essence are identical. Intelligible entities do not exist

before the intelligence that thinks them, as sense-ob

jects exist before the sensation which perceives them.

Intelligence itself is the things that it thinks, since their

forms are not introduced to them from without. Fromwhere indeed would intelligence receive these forms?

Intelligence exists with the intelligible things; intel

ligence is identical with them, is one with them.Reciprocally, intelligible entities do not exist without

their matter (that is, Intelligence).

1 As thought Plato in his Parmenides, C154.



iv.9] HOW SOULS FORM A SINGLE SOUL 139

FOURTH ENNEAD, BOOK NINE.

Whether All Souls Form a Single One?

IF ALL SOULS BE ONE IN THE WORLD-SOUL, WHYSHOULD THEY NOT TOGETHER FORM ONE?

1. Just as the soul of each animal is one, because

she is entirely present in the whole body, and because

she is thusreally one,

because shedoes not have one

part in one organ, and some other part in another;and just as the sense-soul is equally one in all the

beings which feel, and just as the vegetative soul is

everywhere entirely one in each part of the growing

plants; why then should your soul and mine not forma single unity? Why should not all souls form but a

single one? Why should not the universal (Soul)

which is present in all beings, be one because she is notdivided in the manner of a body, being everywherethe same? Why indeed should the soul in myself form

but one, and the universal (Soul) likewise not be one,

similarly, since no more than my own is this universal

(Soul) either material extension, or a body? If both

my soul and yours proceed from the universal (Soul),

andif

the latter be one, then should my soul andyours together form but a single one. Or again, on

the supposition that the universal (Soul) and mine

proceed from a single soul, even on this hypothesiswould all souls form but a single one. We shall have

to examine in what (this Soul which is but) one con

sists.




SOULS MAY NOT FORMANUMERIC UNITY. BUT MAYFORM A GENERIC UNITY.

Let us first consider if it may be affirmed that all

souls form but one in the sense in which it is said

that the soul of each individual is one. It seems absurd

to pretend that my soul and yours form but one in this

(numerical) sense; for then you would be feeling

simultaneouslywith

my feeling,and

youwould be

virtuous when I was, and you would have the same

desires asI,

and not only would we both have the

same sentiments, but even the identical sentiments of

the universal (Soul), so that every sensation felt byme would have been felt by the entire universe. If in

this manner all the souls form but one, why is one

soul reasonable, and the other unreasonable, why is

the one in an animal, and the other in a plant? Onthe other hand, if we do not admit that there is a single

Soul, we will not be able to explain the unity of the

universe, nor find a single principle for (human) souls.

THE UNITY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SEVERAL SOULSNEED NOT IMPLY THEIR BEING IDENTICAL.

2. In the first place, if the souls of myself and of

another man form but one soul, this does not neces

sarily imply their being identical with their principle.

Granting the existence of different beings, the same

principle need not experience in each the same affec

tions. Thus, humanity may equally reside in me, whoam in motion, as in you, who may be at rest, althoughin me it

moves,and it rests in

you. Nevertheless,it

is neither absurd nor paradoxical to insist that the same

principle is both in you and in me; and this does not

necessarily make us feel the identical affections. Consider a single body: it is not the left hand which feels

what the right one does, but the soul which is presentin the whole body. To make you feel the same as I




do, our two bodies would have to constitute but asingle one; then, being thus united, our souls would

perceive the same affections. Consider also that the

All remains deaf to a multitude of impressions experienced by the parts of a single and same organism, and

that so much the more as the body is larger. This is

the state of affairs, for instance, with the large whales

which do not feel the impression received in some one

part of their body, because of the smallness of the

movement.

SYMPATHY DOES NOT FORCE IDENTITY OF SENSATION.

It is therefore by no means necessary that when one

member of the universe experiences an affection, thelatter be clearly felt by the All. The existence of

sympathy is natural enough, and it could not be denied;but this does not imply identity of sensation. Nor is

it absurd that our souls, while forming a single one

should be virtuous and vicious, just as it would be

possible that the same essence be at motion in me, but

at resHn you. Indeed, the unity that we attribute to

the unFversal (Soul) does not exclude all multiplicity,

such a unity as befits intelligence. We may however

say that (the soul) is simultaneously unity and plur

ality, because she participates not only in divisible es

sence in the bodies, but also in the indivisible, which

consequently is one. Now, just as the impression

perceived by one of my parts is not necessarily felt all

over my body, while that which happens to the principal organ is felt by all the other parts, likewise, the

impressions that the universe communicates to the in

dividual are clearer, because usually the parts perceive

the same affections as the All, while it is not evident

that the particular affections that we feel would be also

experienced by the Whole.




UNITY OF ALL BEINGS IMPLIED BY SYMPATHY,LOVE, AND MAGIC ENCHANTMENT.

3. On the other hand, observation teaches us that

we sympathize with each other, that we cannot see the

suffering of another man without sharing it, that weare naturally inclined to confide in each other, and to

love; for love is a fact whose origin is connected with

the question that occupies us. Further, if enchantments and magic charms mutually attract individuals,

leading distant persons to sympathize, these effects can

only be explained by the unity of soul. (It is well

known that) words pronounced in a low tone of voice

(telepathically? ) affect a distant person, and makehim hear what is going on at a great distance. Hence

appears the unity of all beings, which demands the unity

of the Soul.

WHAT OF THE DIFFERENCES OF RATIONALITY, IF

THE SOUL BE ONE?

If, however, the Soul be one, why is some one soul

reasonable, another irrational, or some other one

merely vegetative? The indivisible part of the soulconsists in reason, which is not divided in the bodies,

while the part of the divisible soul in the bodies (which,

though being one in herself, nevertheless divides her

self in the bodies, because she sheds sentiment every

where), must be regarded as another power of the

soul (the sensitive power) ; likewise, the part which

fashions andproduces

the bodies is still another

power (the vegetative power) ; nevertheless, this

plurality of powers does not destroy the unity of the

soul. For instance, in a grain of seed there are also

several powers; nevertheless this grain of seed is one,

and from this unity is born a multiplicity which forms

a unity.




THE POWERS OF THE SOULARE NOT EXERCISED

EVERYWHERE BECAUSE THEY DIFFER.

But why do not all the powers of the soul act everywhere? Now if we consider the Soul which is one

everywhere, we find that sensation is not similar in

all its parts (that is,in all the individual souls) ;

that

reason is not in all (but in certain souls exclusively) ;

and that the vegetative power is granted to those

beings who do not possess sensation, and that all these

powers return to unity when they separate from the

body.

THE BODY S POWER OF GROWTH I DERIVED FROMTHE WHOLE, AND THE SOUL; BUT NOT FROM

OUR SOUL.

If, however, the body derive its vegetative powerfrom the Whole and from this (universal) Soul which

is one, why should it not derive it also from our soul?

Because that which is nourished by this power forms a

part of the universe, which possesses sensation only at

the price of"suffering."

As to the sense-power which

rises as far as the judgment, and whichis

unitedto

every intelligence, there was no need for it to form

what had already been formed by the Whole, but it

could have given its forms if these forms were not

parts of the Whole which produces them.

THE UNITY OF THE SOULS IS A CONDITION OFTHEIR MULTIPLICITY.

4. Such justifications will preclude surprise at our

deriving all souls from unity. But completeness of

treatment demands explanation how all souls are but

a single one. Is this due to their proceeding from a

single Soul, or because they all form a single one?

If all proceed from a single one, did this one divide




herself,or did she remain

whole,while

begettingthe

multitude of souls? In this case, how could an es

sence beget a multitude like her, while herself remain

ing undiminished? We shall invoke the help of the

divinity (in solving this problem) ;and say that the

existence of the one single Soul is the condition of the

existence of the multitude of souls, and that this multi

tude must proceed from the Soul that is one.

THE SOUL CAN BEGET MANY BECAUSE SHE IS ANINCORPOREAL ESSENCE.

If the Soul were a body, then would the division of

this body necessarily produce the multitude of souls,

and this essence would be different in its differentparts.

Nevertheless, as this essence would be homogeneous,the souls (between which it would divide itself) would

be similar to each other, because they would possessa single identical form in its totality, but they would

differ by their body. If the essence of these souls

consisted in the bodies which would serve them as

subjects, they would be different from each other. If

the essence of these souls consisted in their form, they

would, in form, be but one single form; in other terms,

there would be but one same single soul in a mulittude

of bodies. Besides, above this soul which would be

one, but which would be spread abroad in the multi

tude of bodies, there would be another Soul which

would not be spread abroad in the multitude of bodies;

it would be from her that wouldproceed

the soul

which would be the unity in plurality, the multiple

image of the single Soul in a single body, like a single

seal, by impressing the same figure to a multitude of

pieces of wax, would be distributing this figure in a

multitude of impressions. In this case (if the essence

of the soul consisted in her form) the soul would be




something incorporeal, and as she would consist in an

affection of the body, there would be nothing astonish

ing in that a single quality, emanating from a single

principle, might be in a multitude of subjects simul

taneously. Last, if the essence of the soul consisted in

being both things (being simultaneously a part of a

homogeneous body and an affection of the body),there would be nothing surprising (if there were a unity

of essence in a multitude of subjects). We have thusshown that the soul is incorporeal, and an essence; wemust now consider the results of this view.

HOW AN ESSENCE CAN BE ONE IN A MULTITUDEOF SOULS IS ILLUSTRATED BY SEED.

5. How can an essence be single in a multitude of

souls? Either this one essence is entire in all souls,

or this one and entire essence begets all souls while

remaining (undiminished) in itself. In either case,

the essence is single. It is the unity to which the in

dividual souls are related; the essence gives itself to

this multitude, and yet simultaneously the essence does

not give itself; it can give of itself to all individual

souls, and neverthless remain single; it is powerful

enough to pass into all simultaneously, and to be

separated from none; thus its essence remains identical,

while being present in a multitude of souls. This is

nothing astonishing; all of science is entirely in each

of its parts, and it begets them without itself ceasingto remain entire within itself.

Likewise,a

grainof

seed is entire in each of its parts in which it naturallydivides itself; each of its parts has the same propertiesas the whole seed; nevertheless the seed remains en

tire, without diminution; and if the matter (in whichthe seed resides) offer it any cause of division, all

the parts will not any the less form a single unity.




THIS MIRACLE IS EXPLAINED BY THE USE OF THE

CONCEPTION OF POTENTIALITY.

It may be objected that in science a part is not the

total science. Doubtless, the notion which is actualized,

and which is studied to the exclusion of others, because

there is special need of it, is only partially an actualiza

tion. Nevertheless, in a latent manner it potentially

comprises all the other notions it implies. Thus, all

the notions are contained in each part of the science,

and in this respect each part is the total science; for

what is only partially actualized (potentially) com

prises all the notions of science. Each notion that one

wishes to render explicit is at one s disposition; and

this in every part of the science that is considered;but

if it be compared with the whole science, it seems to

be there only potentially. It must not, however, bethought that the particular notion does not contain

anything of the other notions; in this case, there would

be nothing systematic or scientific about it; it would

be nothing more than a sterile conception. Being a

really scientific notion, it potentially contains all the

notions of the science; and the genuine scientist knows

how to discover all its notions in a single one, and howto develop its consequences. The geometical ex

pert shows in his demonstrations how each theorem

contains all the preceding ones, to which he harks back

by analysis, and how each theorem leads to all the

following ones, by deduction.

DIFFICULT AS THESE EXPLANATIONS ARE, THEYARE CLEAR INTELLIGIBLY.

These truths excite our incredulity, because here

below our reason is weak, and it is confused by the

body. In the intelligible world, however, all the

verities are clear, and each is evident, by itself.



vi.9] OF THE GOOD AND THE ONE 147

SIXTH ENNEAD, BOOK NINE.

Of the Good and the One.

UNITY NECESSARY TO EXISTENCE OF ALL BEINGS.

1. All beings, both primary, as well as those whoare so called on any pretext soever, are beings onlybecause of their unity. What, indeed would they be

without it? Deprived of their unity, they would cease

to be what they are said to be. No army can exist

unless it be one. So with a choric ballet or a flock.

Neither a house nor a ship can exist without unity; by

losing it they would cease to be what they are.1 So

also with continuous quantities which would not exist

without unity. On being divided by losing their unity,

they simultaneously lose their nature. Consider farther

the bodies of

plants

and animals, of which each is a

unity. On losing their unity by being broken up into

several parts, they simultaneously lose their nature.

They are no more what they were, they have become

new beings, which themselves exist only so long as

they are one. What effects health in us, is that the

parts of our bodies are co-ordinated in unity. Beautyis formed by the unity of our members. Virtue is our

soul s tendency to unity, and becoming one throughthe harmony of her faculties.

THE SOUL MAY IMPART UNITY, BUT IS NOT UNITY.

The soul imparts unity to all things when producing

them, fashioning them, and forming them. Should we,




therefore, after rising to the Soul, say that she notonly imparts unity, but herself is unity in itself? Cer

tainly not. The soul that imparts form and figure to

bodies is not identical with form, and figure. There

fore the soul imparts unity without being unity. She

unifies each of her productions only by contemplationof the One, just as she produces man only by com-

templating Man-in-himself, although adding to that

idea the implied unity. Each of the things that are

called "one" have a unity proportionate to their

nature("being") ;

so that they participate in unitymore or less according as they share essence2

(being).Thus the soul is something different from unity; never

theless, as she exists in a degree higher (than the

body), she participates more in unity, without being

unity itself; indeed sheis

one, but the unityin

heris

no more than contingent. There is a difference be

tween the soul and unity, just as between the body and

unity. A discrete quantity such as a company of

dancers, or choric ballet, is very far from being unity;

a continuous quantity approximates that further; the

soul gets still nearer to it, and participates therein still

more. Thus from the fact that the soul could not

exist without being one, the identity between the soul

and unity is suggested. But this may be answered in

two ways. First, other things also possess individual

existence because they possess unity, and nevertheless

are not unity itself; as, though the body Is not identical

with unity, it also participates in unity. Further, the

soul is manifold as well as one, though she be not

composedof

parts. She possessesseveral

faculties,discursive reason, desire, and perception all of themfaculties joined together by unity as a bond. Doubt

less the soul imparts unity to something else (the

body), because she herself possesses unity; but this

unity is by her received from some other principle

(namely, from unity itself).




BEING AND ESSENCE IDENTICAL WITH UNITY.2. (Aristotle

3) suggests that in each of the in

dividual beings which are one, being is identical with

unity. Are not being and essence identical with unity,in every being and in every essence, in a manner such

that on discovering essence, unity also is discovered?

Is not being in itself unity in itself, so that if being be

intelligence, unityalso must be

intelligence,as intel

ligence which, being essence in the highest degree, is

also unity in the first degree, and which, imparting es

sence to other things, also imparts unity to them?What indeed could unity be, apart from essence and

being? As"man," and "a man" are equivalent,

4

essence must be identical with unity; or, unity is the

number of everything considered individually; and as

one object joined to another is spoken of as two, soan object alone is referred to as one.

UNITY IS NOT A NUMBERING DEVICE, BUT IS

IDENTICAL WITH EXISTENCE.

If number belongs to the class of beings, evidentlythe latter must include unity also; and we shall have

to discover what kind of abeing

it is. If

unitybe no

more than a numbering device invented by the soul,

then unity would possess no real existence. But wehave above observed that each object, on losing unity,

loses existence also. We are therefore compelled to

investigate whether essence and unity be identical

either when considered in themselves, or in each in

dividual object.

EVEN UNIVERSAL ESSENCE CONTAINS MANI-FOLDNESS.

If the essence of each thing be manifoldness, and as

unity cannot be manifoldness, unity must differ fromessence. Now man, being both animal and rational,

contains a manifoldness of elements of which unity is




the bond. There is therefore a difference betweenman and unity; man is divisible, while unity is indi

visible. Besides, universal Essence, containing all es

sences, is still more manifold. Therefore it differs from

unity; though it does possess unity by participation. \

Essence possesses life and intelligence, for it cannot

be considered lifeless; it must therefore be manifold.

Besides, if essence be intelligence, it must in this re

spect also be manifold, and must be much more so

if it contain forms; for the idea5

is not genuinely one.

Both as individual and general it is rather a number;it is one only as the world is one.

BESIDES, ABSOLUTE UNITY IS THE FIRST, WHICHINTELLIGENCE IS NOT.

Besides, Unity in itself is the first of all; but intel

ligence, forms and essence are not primary. Everyform is manifold and composite, and consequentlymust be something posterior; for parts are prior to

the composite they constitute. Nor is intelligence

primary, as appears from the following considerations.

For intelligence existence is necessarily thought and

the best intelligence which does not contemplate ex

terior objects, must think what is above it; for, on

turning towards itself, it turns towards its principle.

On the one hand, if intelligence be both thinker and

thought, it implies duality, and is not simple or unitary.

On the other hand, if intelligence contemplate some

object other than itself, this might be nothing more

than some object better than itself, placed aboveit.

Even if intelligence contemplate itself simultaneously

with what is better than it, even so intelligence is

only of secondary rank. We may indeed admit that

the intelligence which has such a nature enjoys the

presence of the Good, of the First, and that intellig

ence contemplates the First; but nevertheless at the




same time intelligence is present to itself, and thinksitself as being all things. Containing such a diversity,

intelligence is far from unity.

UNITY AS ABOVE ALL THINGS, INTELLIGENCE ANDESSENCE.

Thus Unity is not all things, for if so, it would no

longer be unity. Nor is it Intelligence, for since intel

ligence is all things, unity too would be all things.

Nor is it essence, since essence also is all things.

UNITY IS DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN BECAUSE THESOUL IS FEARFUL OF SUCH ABSTRUSE

RESEARCHES.

3. What then is unity? What is its nature? It is

not surprising that it is so difficult to say so, when it

is difficult to explain of what even essence or form

consist. But, nevertheless, forms are the basis of our

knowledge. Everything that the soul advances towards

what is formless, not being able to understand it be

cause it is

indeterminate,and so to

speakhas not re

ceived the impression of a distinctive type, the soul

withdraws therefrom, fearing she will meet nonentity.

That is why, in the presence of such things she grows

troubled, and descends with pleasure. Then, with

drawing therefrom, she, so to speak, lets herself fall

till she meets some sense-object, on which she pauses,

and recovers; just as the eye which, fatigued by the

contemplation of small objects, gladly turns back to

large ones. When the soul wishes to see by herself,

then seeing only because she is the object that she

sees, and, further, being one because she forms but

one with this object, she imagines that what she soughthas escaped, because she herself is not distinct from

the object that she thinks.




THE PATH OF SIMPLIFICATION TO UNITY.

Nevertheless a philosophical study of unity will fol

low the following course. Since it is Unity that weseek, since it is the principle of all things, the Good,the First that we consider, those who will wish to

reach it must not withdraw from that which is of

primary rank to decline to what occupies the last, but

they must withdraw their souls from sense-objects,

which occupy the last degree in the scale of existence,

to those entities that occupy the first rank. Such a

man will have to free himself from all evil, since he

aspires to rise to the Good. He will rise to the prin

ciple that he possesses within himself. From the mani

fold that he was he will again become one. Onlyunder these conditions will he contemplate the supreme

principle, Unity.* Thus

havingbecome

intelligence,(having trusted his soul to intelligence, educating and

establishing her therein, so that with vigilant attention

she may grasp all that intelligence sees, he will, byIntelligence, contemplate unity, without the use of any[senses, without mingling any of their perceptions with

the flashes of intelligence. He will contemplate the

purest Principle, through the highest degree of the

purest Intelligence. So when a man applies himselfto the contemplation of such a principle and represents it to himself as a magnitude, or a figure, or even

a form, it is not his intelligence that guides him in this

contemplation for intelligence is not destined to see

such things; it is sensation, or opinion, the associate of

sensation, which is active in him. Intelligence is only

capableof

informingus about

things

within its

sphere.

UNITY AS THE UNIFORM IN ITSELF AND FORMLESSSUPERFORM.

ft Intelligence can see both the things that are above it,

those which belong to it, and the things that proceedfrom it. The things that belong to intelligence are




pure;but

theyare still less

pureand less

simplethan

the things that are above Intelligence, or rather than

what is above it; this is not Intelligence, and is superiorto Intelligence. Intelligence indeed is essence, while

the principle above it is not essence, but is superior to

all beings. Nor is it essence, for essence has a special

form, that of essence, and the One is shapeless, even

intelligible. As Unity is the nature that begts all

things, Unity cannot be any of them. It is thereforeneither any particular thing, nor quantity, nor quality,

nor intelligence, nor soul, nor what is movable, nor

what is stable; it is neither in place nor time; but it is

the uniform in itself, or rather it is formless, as it is

above all form, above movement and stability. These

are my views about essence and what makes it mani

fold.6

WHY IT IS NOT STABLE, THOUGH IT DOES NOTMOVE.

But if it does not move, why does it not possess

stability? Because either of these things, or both

together,are suitable to

nothingbut essence. Be

sides, that which possesses stability is stable through

stability, and is not identical with stability itself; con

sequently it possesses stability only by accident, and

would no longer remain simple.

BEING A PRIMARY CAUSE, UNITY IS NOTHING

CONTINGENT.Nor let anybody object that something contingent

is attributed to Unity when we call it the primary cause.

It is to ourselves that we are then attributing conting

ency, since it is we who are receiving something from

Unity, while Unity remains within itself.




UNITY CANNOT BE DEFINED; WE CAN ONLY REFER

TO IT BY OUR FEELINGS OF IT.

Speaking strictly, we should say that the One is this

or that (that is, we should not apply any name to it).

We can do no more than turn around it, so to speak,

trying to express what we feel (in regard to it) ;for

at times we approach Unity, and at times withdraw

from it as a result of our

uncertainty

about it.

WE CANNOT COMPREHEND UNITY, WHICH WEAPPROACH ONLY BY A PRESENCE.

4. The principal cause of our uncertainty is that

our comprehension of the One comes to us neither -by

scientific knowledge, nor by thought, as the knowl

edge of other intelligible things, but by a presencewhich is superior to science. When the soul acquiresthe scientific knowledge of something, she withdraws

from unity and ceases being entirely one; for science

implies discursive reason and discursive reason impliesmanifoldness. (To attain Unity) we must therefore

rise above science, and never withdraw from what

is essentially One; we must therefore renounce science,the objects of science, and every other right (exceptthat of the One) ;

even to that of beauty; for beautyis posterior to unity, and is derived therefrom, as the

day-light comes from the sun. That is why Plato7

says of (Unity) that it is unspeakable and undescrib-

able. Nevertheless we speak of it, we write about it,

but only to excite our souls by our discussions, and to

direct them towards this divine spectacle, just as one

might point out the road to somebody who desired

to see some object. Instruction, indeed, goes as far

as showing the road, and guiding us in the way; but to

obtain the vision (of the divinity), is the work suitable

to him who has desired to obtain it.




THOSE WHO SEE GOD WITHOUT EMOTION HAVEFAILED TO RID THEMSELVES OF PHYSICAL

HINDRANCES, AND HAVE NOT BECOMEUNIFIED.

If your soul does not succeed in enjoying this

spectacle, if she does not have the intuition of the

divine light, if she remains cold and does not, within

herself, feel a rapture such as that of a lover who seesthe beloved object, and who rests within it, a rapturefelt by him who has seen the true light, and whose

soul has been overwhelmed with brilliance on ap

proaching this light, then you have tried to rise to the

divinity without having freed yourself from the

hindrances which arrest your progress, and hinder

your contemplation.You did not rise alone, and

youretained within yourself something that separated youfrom Him; or rather, you were not yet unified. ThoughHe be absent from all beings, He is absent from none,

so that He is present (to all) without being present

(to them). He is present only for those who are able

to receive Him, and who are prepared for Him, and

who are capable of harmonizing themselves with Him,

to reach Him, and as it were to touch Him by virtueof the conformity they have with Him, and also byvirtue of an innate power analogous to that which

flows from Him, when at last their souls find themselves in the state where they were after having communicated with Him; then they can see Him so far as

his nature is visible. I repeat: if you have not yet

risen sofar,

the conclusion must be that

youare still

at a distance from Him, either by the obstacles of

which we spoke above, or by the lack of such instruc

tion as would have taught you the road to follow,

and which would have imbued you with faith in thingsdivine. In any case, you have no fault to find with

any but yourself; for, to be alone, all you need to do




is to detach yourself from everything. Lack of faith

in arguments about it may be remedied by the follow

ing considerations.

HOW SUCH AS RISE AS FAR AS THE SOUL MAYACHIEVE FAITH IN THE INTELLIGIBLE.

5. Such as imagine that beings are governed by

luck or chance, and that they depend on materialcauses are far removed from the divinity, and fromthe conception of unity. It is not such men that weare addressing, but such as admit the existence of a

nature different from the corporeal one, and who at

least rise (to an acknowledgment of the existence of)the Soul. These should apply themselves to the studyof the nature of the soul, learning, among other truths,

that she proceeds from Intelligence, and that she canachieve virtue by participating in Intelligence throughreason. They must then acknowledge the existence

of an Intelligence superior to the intelligence that

reasons, namely, to discursive reason. They must

(also realize) that reasonings imply an interval (between notions), and a movement (by which the soul

bridges this interval). They must be brought to seethat scientific knowledge consists also of reasons of

the same nature (namely, rational notions), reasons

suitable to the soul, but which have become clear,

because the soul has received the succession of intel

ligence which is the source of scientific knowledge.

By intelligence (which belongs to her), the soul sees

the divine Intellect, which to it seems sensual, in this

sense that it is perceptible by intelligence, which dominates the soul, and is her father;

8that is, the intel

ligible world, a calm intellect which vibrates without

issuing from its tranquility, which contains everything,and which is all. It is both definite and indefinite

manifoldness, for the ideas it contains are not distinct




like the reasons (the rational notions), which areconceived one by one. Nevertheless, they dp

not

become confused. Each of them becomes distinct

from the others, just as in a science all the notions,

though forming an indivisible whole, yet each has

its own separate individual existence.9 This multi

tude of ideas taken together constitutes the intelligible

world. This is the (entity) nearest to the First. Its

existence is inevitably demonstrated by reason, as

much as the necessity of the existence of the Soul her

self; but though the intelligible world is something

superior to the Soul, it is nevertheless not yet the First,

because it is neither one, nor simple, while the one,

the principle of all beings, is perfectly simple.

THE SUPREME IS ONE ONLY IN A FIGURATIVESENSE.

The principle that is superior to what is highest

among beings, to Intelligence (or intellect, or intel

ligible world) (may well be sought after). There

must indeed be some principle above Intelligence; for

intelligence does indeed aspire to become one, but it

is not one, possessing only the form of unity. Considered in itself, Intelligence is not divided, but is

genuinely present to itself. It does not dismember

itself because it is next to the One, though it dared to

withdraw therefrom. What is above Intelligence is

Unity itself, an incomprehensible miracle, of which

it cannot even be said that it is essence, lest we make

of it the attribute of something else, and to whom noname is really suitable. If however He must be

named, we may indeed call Him in general Unity, but

only on the preliminary understanding that He was

not first something else, and then only later became

unity. That is why the One is so difficult to under

stand in Himself; He is rather known by His offspring;




thatis, by Being,

becauseIntelligence

leadsup

toBeing.The nature of the One, indeed, is the source of ex

cellent things, the power which begets beings, while

remaining within Himself, without undergoing any

diminution, without passing into the beings to which

He gives birth.10

If we call this principle Unity, it is

only for the mutual convenience of rising to some

indivisible conception, and in unifying our soul. But

when we say that this principle is one and indivisible,

it is not in the same sense that we say it of the (geo

metric) point, and of the (arithmetical unity called

the) monad. What is one in the sense of the unity

of the point or the monad, is a principle of quantity,

and would not exist unless preceded by being and the

principle which precedes even that being. It is not

of this kind ofunity

that we mustthink;

still we be

lieve that the point and the monad have analogy with

the One by their simplicity as well as by the absence of

all manifoldness and of all division.

THE ONE MAY BE CONCEIVED OF AS INDIVISIBLE

AND INFINITE.

6. In what sense do we use the name of unity, andhow can we conceive of it? We shall have to insist

that the One is a unity much more perfect than the

point of the monad; for in these, abstracting (geo

metric) magnitude, and numerical plurality, we do

indeed stop at that which is most minute, and wecome to rest in something indivisible; but this existed

already in a divisible being, in a subject other thanitself, while the One is neither in a subject other than

itself, nor in anything divisible. If it be indivisible,

neither is it of the same kind as that which is most

minute. On the contrary, it is that which is greatest,

not by (geometric) magnitude, but by power; pos

sessing no (geometric) magnitude, it is indivisible in




its power; for the beings beneathit are indivisible in

their powers, and not in their mass (since they are

incorporeal). We must also insist that the One is

infinite, not as would be a mass of a magnitude which

could be examined serially, but by the incommensur

ability of its power. Even though you should con

ceive of it as of intelligence or divinity, it is still

higher. When by thought you consider it as the most

perfect unity, it is still higher. You try to form for

yourself an idea of a divinity by rising to what in your

intelligence is most unitary (and yet He is still sim

pler) ;for He dwells within Himself, and contains

nothing that is contingent.

THE ONE IS SELF-SUFFICIENT AND NEEDS NOTHING

FOR ESTABLISHMENT.

His sovereign unity may best be understood by His

being self-sufficient; for the most perfect principle is

necessarily that which best suffices Himself, and which

least needs anything else. Now anything that is not

one, but manifold, needs something else. Not being

one,but

being composedof

multiple elements,its

being demands unification; but as the One is already

one, He does not even need Himself. So much the

more, the being that is manifold needs as many thingsas it contains; for each of the contained things exists

only by its union with the others, and not in itself, and

finds that it needs the others. Therefore such a beingneeds others, both for the things it contains, as for

their totality. If then there must be something that

fully suffices itself, it must surely be the One, which

alone needs nothing either relatively to Himself, or

to the other things. It needs nothing either to exist,

or to be happy, or to be composed. To begin with, as

He is the cause of the other beings, He does not oweHis existence to them. Further, how could He derive




His

happiness

from outside Himself? WithinHim,happiness is not something contingent, but is His very

nature. Again, as He does not occupy any space, Hedoes not need any foundation on which to be edified,

as if He could not sustain Himself. All that needs

compounding is inanimate; without support it is no

more than a mass ready to fall. (Far from needing

any support) the One is the foundation of the edifica

tion of all other things; by giving them existence, Hehas at the same time given them a location. However,that which needs a location is not (necessarily) self-

sufficient.

THE SUPREME, AS SUPERGOODNESS, COULD NOTASPIRE TO ANYTHING ELSE.

A principle has no need of anything beneath it. ThePrinciple of all things has no need of any of them.

Every non-self-sufficient being is not self-sufficient

chiefly because it aspires to its principle. If the One

aspired to anything. His aspiration would evidently tend

to destroy His unity, that is, to annihilate Himself.

Anything that aspires evidently aspires to happiness

and preservation. Thus, since for the One thereis

no good outside of Himself, there is nothing that Hecould wish. He is the super-good; He is the good,not for Himself, but for other beings, for those that

can participate therein.

THE ONE IS NOT THINKER BUT THOUGHT ITSELF.

Within the One, therefore, is no thought, because

there can be no difference within Him; nor could Hecontain any motion, because the One is prior to

motion, as much as to thought. Besides, what would

He think? Would He think Himself? In this case,

He would be ignorant before thinking, and thought




would be necessary to Him, who fully suffices to Himself. Neither should He be thought to contain ignor

ance, because He does not know Himself, and does_not think Himself. Ignorance presupposes a relation, /

and consists in that one thing does not know another.

But the One, being alone, can neither know nor be

ignorant of anything. Being with Himself, He has no

need of self-knowledge. We should not even predicate

of Him presence with Himself, if we are to conceive

of Him Unity in sheer purity. On the contrary, weshould have to leave aside intelligence, consciousness,

and knowledge of self and of other beings. We should

not conceive of Him as being that which thinks, but

rather as of thought. Thought does not think; but is

the cause which makes some other being think; now

the cause cannot be identical with that which is caused.So much the more reason is there then to say that that

which is the cause of all these existing things cannot

be any one of them. This Cause, therefore, must not

be considered identical with the good He dispenses,

but must be conceived as the Good in a higher sense,

the Good which is above all other goods.

THE SOUL MUST BE STRIPPED OF FORM TO BEILLUMINATED BY PRIMARY NATURE.

7. Your mind remains in uncertainty because the

divinity is none of these things (that you know).

Apply it first to these things, and later fix it on the

divinity. While doing so, do not let yourself be dis

tracted by anything exterior for the divinity is not in

any definite place, depriving the remainder of its

presence, but it is present wherever there is any personwho is capable of entering into contact therewith. It

is absent only for those who cannot succeed therein.

Just as, for other objects, one could not discover what

one seeks by thinking of something else, and as one




should not addany

alienthing

to theobject that

is

thought if one wishes to identify oneself therewith;likewise here one must be thoroughly convinced that

it is impossible for any one whose soul contains anyalien image to conceive of the divinity so long as such

an image distracts the soul s attention. It is equally

impossible that the soul, at the moment that she is

attentive, and attached to other things, should assume

the form of what is contrary to them. Just as it is

said of matter that it must be absolutely deprived of

all qualities to be susceptible of receiving all forms;

likewise, and for a stronger reason, the soul must be

stripped of all form, if she desire to be filled with and

illuminated by the primary nature without any in

terior hindrance. Thus, having liberated herself from

all exteriorthings,

the soul willentirely

turn to what

is most intimate in her; she will not allow herself to

be turned away by any of the surrounding objects and

she will put aside all things, first by the very effect

of the state in which she will find herself, and later bythe absence of any conception of form. She will not

even know that she is applying herself to the con

templation of the One, or that she is united thereto.

Then, after having sufficiently dwelt with it, she will,

if she can, come to reveal to others this heavenlycommunion. Doubtless it was enjoyment of this communion that was the basis of the traditional conversa

tion of Minos with Jupiter.11

Inspired with the

memories of this interview, he made laws which repre

sented it, because, while he was drawing them up, he

was still under the influence of his union with the

divinity. Perhaps even, in this state, the soul maylook down on civil virtues as hardly worthy of her,

12

inasmuch as she desires to dwell on high; and this

does indeed happen to such as have long contemplatedthe divinity.




ONSELF-KNOWLEDGE DEPENDS RECOGNITION OF

DIVINE KINSHIP.

(In short), the divinity is not outside of any being.On the contrary, He is present to all beings, thoughthese may be ignorant thereof. This happens because

they are fugitives, wandering outside of Him or rather,

outside of themselves. They cannot reach Him from

whom they are fleeing, nor, having lost themselves,can they find another being. A son, if angry, and

beside himself, is not likely to recognize his father.

But he who will have learnt to know himself will at

the same time discover from where he hails.13

TO BE ATTACHED TO THE CENTRE CONSTITUTESDIVINITY.

8. Self-knowledge reveals the fact that the soul s

natural movement is not in a straight line, unless

indeed it have undergone some deviation. On the

contrary, it circles around something interior, around

a centre. Now the centre is that from which proceedsthe circle, that is, the soul.

14 The soul will therefore

move around thecentre,

that is;around the

principlefrom which she proceeds; and, trending towards it,

she will attach herself to it, as indeed all souls should

do. The souls of the divinities ever direct themselves

towards it; and that is the secret of their divinity; for

divinity consists in being attached to the Centre (of

all souls). Anyone who withdraws much therefrom

is a man who has remained manifold (that is, who has

never become unified), or who is a brute. 15

THE CELEBRATED SIMILE OF THE MAN WHOSE FEETARE IN A BATH-TUB.

Is the centre of the soul then the principle that weare seeking? Or must we conceive some other prin-




ciple towards which all centres radiate? To beginwith, it is only by analogy that the words "centre"

and "circle" are used. By saying that the soul is a

circle, we do not mean that she is a geometrical figure,

but that in her and around her subsists primordialnature. 16

(By saying that she has a centre, we mean

that) the soul is suspended from the primary Principle

(by the highest part of her being), especially when

she is entirely separated (from the body). Now, however, as we have a part of our being contained in the

ithe body, we resemble a man whose feet are plunged

I in water, with the rest of his body remaining above it.

Raising ourselves above the body by the whole part

which is not immerged, we are by our own centre

reattaching ourselves to the Centre common to all

beings, justin

the same way as we makethe

centresof the great circles coincide with that of the spherethat surrounds them. If the circles of the soul were

corporeal, the common centre would have to occupya certain place for them to coincide with it, and for

them to turn around it. But since the souls are of

the order of intelligible (essences), and as the Oneis still above Intelligence, we shall have to assert that

the intercourse of the soul with the One operates bymeans different from those by which Intelligence unites

with the intelligible. This union, indeed, is much closer

than that which is realized between Intelligence and the

intelligible by resemblance or identity; it takes place

by the intimate relationship that unites the soul with

unity, without anything to separate them. Bodies

cannotunite

mutually;

17 butthey

could not hinder

the mutual union of incorporeal (essences) because

that which separates them from each other is not a

local distance, but their distinction and difference.

When there is no difference between them, they are

present in each other.




THE FAMOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE COSMIC

CHORAL BALLET.

As the One does not contain any difference, He is

always present; and we are ever present to Him as

soon as we contain no more difference. It is not Hewho is aspiring to us, or who is moving around us;

on the contrary, it is we who are aspiring to Him.

Thoughwe

alwaysmove around

Him,we do not

always keep our glance fixed on Him. We resemble

a chorus which always surrounds its leader, but (themembers of) which do not always sing in time be

cause they allow their attention to be distracted to

some exterior object; while, if they turned towards

the leader, they would sing well, and really be with

him. Likewise, we always turn around the One, even

when we detach ourselves from Him, and cease knowing Him. Our glance is not always fixed on the One;but when we contemplate Him, we attain the purposeof our desires, and enjoy the rest taught by Heracli-

tus.18 Then we disagree no more, and really form a

divine choric ballet around Him.

FOLLOWING NUMENIUS, PLOTINOS DESCRIBES THE

SUPREME AS GIVER.

9. In this choric ballet, the soul sees the source

of life, the source of intelligence, the principle of

being, the cause of the good, and the root of love. All

these entities are derived from the One without dimin

ishing Him. He is indeed no corporeal mass; other

wise the things that are born of Him would be perish

able. However, they are eternal, because their prin

ciple ever remains the same, because19 He does not

divide Himself to produce them, but remains entire.

They persist, just as the light persists so long as the

sun remains. 20 Nor are we separated from the One;

we are not distant from Him, though corporeal nature,




by approaching us, has attracted us to it

(thus

draw

ing us away from the One).21 But it is in the One

that we breathe and have our being.22 He gave us

life not merely at a given moment, only to leave us

later; but His giving is perpetual, so long as He re

mains what He is, or rather, so long as we turn

towards Him. There it is that we find happiness, while

to withdraw from Him is to fall. It is in Him that our

soul rests; it is by rising to that place free from1

all

evil that she is delivered from evils; there she really

thinks, there she. is impassible, there she really lives.

Our present life, in which we are not united with the

divinity, is only a trace or adumbration of real life.

Real life (which is presence with the divinity) is the

actualization of intelligence. It is this actualization

of intelligence which begets the divinities by a sort

of silent intercourse with the One; thereby begetting

beauty, justice and virtue. These are begotten by the

soul that is filled with divinity. In Him is her principle

and goal; her principle, because it is from there that

she proceeds; her goal, because there is the good to

which she aspires, so that by returning thither she

again becomes what she was. Life here below, in the

midst of sense-objects, is for the soul a degradation,an exile, a loss of her wings.

23

THE PARABLE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE. LEADINGUP TO DIVINIZATION.

Another proof thatpur

welfare resides up there is

the love that is innate in our souls, as is taught in the

descriptions and myths which represent love as the

husband of the soul.24 In fact, since the soul, which

is different from the divinity, proceeds from Him, she

must necessarily love Him; but when she is on high25

her love is celestial; here below, her love is only

commonplace; for it is on high that dwells the celestial




Venus (Urania); while here below resides the vulgar

and adulterous Venus. 26 Now every soul is a Venus,as is indicated by the myth of the birth of Venus and

Cupid, who is supposed to be born simultaneously with

her. 27 So long as she remains faithful to he-r nature,

the soul therefore loves the divinity, and desires to

unite herself to Him, who seems like the noble father

of a bride who has fallen in love with some hand

some lover. When however the soul has descendedinto generation, deceived by the false promises of an

adulterous lover, she has exchanged her clivine love

for a mortal one. Then, at a distance from her father,

she yields to all kinds of excesses. Ultimately, how

ever, she grows ashamed of these disorders; she purifies herself, she returns to her father, and finds true

happiness with Him. How great her bliss then is canbe conceived by such as have not tasted it only by

comparing it somewhat to earthly love-unions, ob

serving the joy felt by the lover who succeeds in

obtaining her whom he loves. But such mortal and

deceptive love is directed only to phantoms; it soon

disappears because the real object of our love is not

these sense-presentations, which are not the good weare really seeking. On high only is the real objectof our love; the only one with which we could unite

or identify ourselves, which we could intimately pos

sess, because it is not separated from our soul by the

covering of our flesh. This that I say will be ac

knowledged by any one who has experienced it;

he will know that the soul then lives another life, that

she advances towards the Divinity, that she reachesHim, possesses Him, and in his condition recognizesthe presence of the Dispenser of the true life. Thenshe needs nothing more. On the contrary, she has

to renounce everything else to fix herself in the

Divinity alone, to identify herself with Him, and to

cut off all that surrounds Him. We must therefore




hasten to issue from here below, detaching ourselvesso far as possible from the body to which we still havethe regret of being chained, making the effort to embrace the Divinity by our whole being, without leavingin us any part that is not in contact with Him. Thenthe soul can see the Divinity and herself, so far as is

possible to her nature. She sees herself shining

brilliantly, filled with intelligible light; or rather, she

sees herself as a pure light, that is subtle and weightless. She becomes divinity, or, rather, she is divinity.In this condition, the soul is a shining light. If later

she falls back into the sense-world, she is plunged into

darkness.

WHY DOES THE SOUL AFTER REACHING YONDERNOT STAY THERE?

10. Why does the soul which has risen on high not

stay there? Because she has not yet entirely detached

herself from things here below. But a time will comewhen she will uninterruptedly enjoy the vision of the

divinity, that is, when she will no longer be troubled

bythe

passionsof the

body.The

partof the soul

that sees the divinity is not the one that is troubled

(the irrational soul), but the other part (the rational

soul). Now she loses the sight of the divinity whenshe does not lose this knowledge which consists in

demonstratings, conjectures and reasonings. In the

vision of the divinity, indeed, that which sees is not

the reason, but something prior and superior to rea

son ; if that which sees be still united to reason, it thenis as that which is seen. When he who sees himself

sees, he will see himself as simple, being united to him

self as simple, and will feel himself as simple. Weshould not even say that he will see, but only that he

will be what he sees, in case that it would still here

be possible to distinguish that which sees from that




which is seen, or to assert that these two things do not

form a single one. This assertion, however, would

be rash, for in this condition he who sees does not,

in the strict sense of the word, see; nor does he

imagine two things. He becomes other, he ceases

to be himself, he retains nothing of himself. Absorbed 1

in the divinity, he is one withit,,

like a centre that

coincides with another centre. While they coincide,

they form but one, though they form two in so far as

they remain distinct. In this sense only do we here

say that the soul is other than the divinity. Conse

quently this manner of vision is very difficult to de

scribe. How indeed could we depict as different from

us Him who, while we were contemplating Him, did

not seem other than ourselves, having come into perfect at-one-ment with us?

ILLUSTRATION FROM THE SECRECY OF THEMYSTERY-RITES.

1 1. That, no doubt, is the meaning of the mystery-rites injunction not to reveal their secrets to the un

initiated. As that which is divine is

unspeakable,it is

ordered that the initiate should not talk thereof to any

(uninitiated person) who have not had the happinessof beholding it (the vision).

THE TRANCE OR ENTHEASM OF ECSTASY.

As(this

vision of thedivinity)

did notimply (theexistence of) two things, and as he who was identical to

Him whom he saw, so that he did not see Him, but was

united thereto, if anyone could preserve the memoryof what he was while thus absorbed into the Divinity,

he would within himself have a faithful image of the

Divinity. Then indeed had he attained at-one-ment,




containing

no difference, neither in

regardto himself,

nor to other beings. While he was thus transportedinto the celestial region, there was within him no

activity, no anger, nor appetite, nor reason, nor even

thought. So much the more, if we dare say so, washe no longer himself, but sunk in trance or enthusiasm,

tranquil and solitary with the divinity, he enjoyed an

imperturable calm. Contained within his own"being,"

(or, essence), he did not incline to either side, he didnot even turn towards himself, he was indeed in a

state of perfect stability, having thus, so to speak, be

come stability itself.

ABOVE BEAUTY AND ABOVE VIRTUE THIS ECSTATIC

SIMPLIFICATIONIS

A COMMUNION.In this condition, indeed, the soul busies herself not

even with the beautiful things, for she rises above

beauty, and passes beyond even the (Stoic) "choir of

virtues."

Thus he who penetrates into the interior

of a sanctuary leaves behind him the statues placed

(at the entrance) of the temple. These indeed are

the first objects that will strike his view on his exit

from the sanctuary, after he shall have enjoyed the

interior spectacle, after having entered into intimate

communion, not indeed with an image or statue, which

would be considered only when he comes out, but

with the divinity. The very word "divine spectacle"

does not, here, seem sufficient (to express the con

templationof the

soul);it is rather an

ecstasy,

a

simplification, a self-abandonment, a desire for inter

course, a perfect quietude, and last, a wish to become

indistinguishable from what was contemplated in the

sanctuary.28

Any one who would seek to see the

Divinity in any other way would be incapable of en

joying His presence.




THE SPIRITUAL TRUTH OF THE ANCIENTMYSTERIES.

By making use of these mysterious figures, wise

interpreters wished to indicate how the divinity mightbe seen. But the wise hierophant, penetrating the

mystery, may, when he has arrived thither, enjoy the

veritable vision of what is in the sanctuary. If he have

not yet arrived thither, he can at least conceive the

invisibility (for physical sight) of That which is in the

sanctuary; he can conceive the source and principle

of everything, and he recognizes it as the one particular principle worthy of the name. (But when he

has succeeded in entering into the sanctuary) he sees

the Principle, enters into communication with it, unites

like to like, leaving aside no divine thing the soul is

capable ci

acquiring.

SUBSEQUENT ECSTATIC EXPERIENCES OF THESOUL.

Before obtaining the vision of the divinity, the soul

desires what yet remains to be seen. For him, how

ever, who has risen above all things, what remains

to be seen is He who is above all other things. Indeed,

the nature of the soul will never reach absolute nonentity. Consequently, when she descends, she will fall

into evil, that is, nonentity, but not into absolute

nonentity. Following the contrary path, she will ar

rive at something different, namely, herself. Fromthe fact that she then is not in anything different from

herself, it does not result that she is within anything,for she remains in herself. That which, without beingin essence, remains within itself, necessarily resides

in the divinity. Then it ceases to be"being,"

and so

far as it comes into communion with the Divinity it

grows superior to"being" (it becomes supra-being).

Now he who sees himself as having become divinity,

possesses within himself an image of the divinity. If



172 WORKS OF PLOTINOS

he rise above himself, he will achieve the limit of his

ascension, becoming as it were an image that becomesindistinguishable from its model. Then, when he shall

have lost sight of the divinity, he may still, by arousingthe virtue preserved within himself, and by consideringthe perfections that adorn his soul, reascend to the

celestial region, by virtue rising to Intelligence, and bywisdom to the Divinity Himself.

THE SOUL S ULTIMATE FATE IS DETACHMENT ANDFLIGHT.

Such is the life of the divinities; such is also that

of divine and blessed men; detachment from all

things here below, scorn of all earthly pleasures, and

flight of the soul towards the Divinity th^t she shall

see face to face (that is, "alone with the alone, as

thought Numenius).29

i See vi. 6.13. 2"Being." It

has been found impossible, in

order to preserve good English

idiom, to translate "ousia" by

"being," and "to on" by "es

sence," with uniformity. Wherethe change has been made, the

proper word has been added in

parentheses, as here. 3 In his

Methaphysics, iv. 2. 4 Aris

totle, Met. iv. 2. 5Evidently

a pun on forms and ideas.6 See vi. 2.7. 7 In the Timaeus

not accurately quoted.8

AsPlato said in the Timaeus, 37.9 See iv. 9.5. 1 See vi. 8.11.

HQdyss. xix. 178. 12 See

i, 2.2. is See iv. 3.1.14 See

ii. 2.2.i 5 See the beginning

of Plato s Republic, ix. 16 See

i. 8.7. 17 Because they GO not

allow of mutual penetration.

i 8 See iv. 8.5. 19 As thoughtNumenius 29. 20 See ii. 3.

21 See i. 8.14. 22 See Acts,xvii. 25, 27, 28. 23 See iv. 3.7,

following the Phaedrus of

Plato. 24Cupid and Psyche, as

interpreted by Apuleius.25 See

iii. 5.2.26 See iii. 5.4. 27 See

iii. 5.7-9. 28 See v. 5.11 ; i. 6.7,

8; v. 8.4; vi. 9.11. It has beencontended that this was a de

scription of the Isiac temple in

Rome. 29 Num. 10.



v.lj THREE PRINCIPAL HYPOSTASES 173

FIFTH ENNEAD, BOOK ONE.

The Three Principal Hypostases, or Forms of

Existence.

AUDACITY THE CAUSE OF HUMAN APOSTASY FROMTHE DIVINITY.

1. How does it happen that souls forget their

paternal divinity? Having a divine nature, and having

originated from the divinity, how could they ever mis

conceive the divinity or themselves? The origin oftheir evil is

"audacity,"

1generation, the primary diver

sity, and the desire to belong to none but themselves. 2

As soon as they have enjoyed the pleasure of an in

dependent life, and by largely making use of their

power of self-direction, they advanced on the road

that led them astray from their principle, and now

they have arrived at such an"apostasy" (distance)

from the Divinity, that they are even ignorant that theyderive their life from Him. Like children that were

separated from their family since birth, and that were

long educated away from home finally lose knowl

edge of their parents and of themselves, so our souls,

no longer seeing either the divinity or themselves, have

become degraded by forgetfulness of their origin, have

attached themselves to other objects, have admiredanything rather than themselves, have like prodigals

scattered their esteem and love on exterior objects,

and have, by breaking the bond that united them to the

divinities, disdainfully wandered away from it. Their

ignorance of the divinity is therefore caused by ex

cessive valuation of external objects, and their scorn




of themselves. The mere admiration and quest afterwhat is foreign implies, on the soul s part, an acknowl

edgment of self-depreciation. As soon as a soul thinks

that she is worth less than that which is born and which

perishes, and considers herself as more despicable and

perishable than the object she admires, she could no

longer even conceive of the nature and power of the

divinity.

CONVERSION IS EFFECTED BY DEPRECIATION OFEXTERNALITIES, AND APPRECIATION OF THE

SOUL HERSELF.

Souls in such conditions may be converted to the

Divinity, and raised to the supreme Principle, to the

One, to the First, by being reasoned with in two ways.

First, they may be led to see the worthlessness of the

objects they at present esteem;3 then they must be

reminded of the origin and dignity of the soul. The

demonstration of the latter point logically precedesthat of the former; and if clearly done, should supportit.

KINSHIP OF THE HUMAN SOUL WITH THE DIVINE.

It is the second point, therefore, that we shall here

discuss. It is related to the study of the object wedesire to know; for it is the soul that desires to know

that object. Now the soul must first examine her own

nature in order to know whether she possess the

faculty of contemplating the divinity, if this study be

suited to her, and if she may hope for success therein.

For indeed if the soul be foreign to divine things, the

soul has no business to ferret out their nature. If

however a close kinship obtains between them, she

both can and should seek to know them.



v.lj THREE PRINCIPAL HYPOSTASES 175

SOULS ARE DIVINE BECAUSE THE WORLD WASCREATED BY THE UNIVERSAL SOUL.

2. This is the first reflection of every soul.4

Byan influx of the spirit of life, the universal Soul produced all the animals upon earth, in the air and in the

sea, as well as the divine stars, the sun, and the im

mense heaven. It was the universal Soul that gave

form to the heavens, and which presides over their

regular revolutions; and she effects all that without

mingling with the being to whom she communicates,

form, movement and life. The universal Soul is far

superior to all created things. While the latter are

bornpi

die in the measure that she imparts to them,or withdraws from them their life, she herself is

"being"and eternal life, because she could not cease

being herself. To understand how life can simultane

ously be imparted to the universe and to each in

dividual, we must contemplate the universal Soul. Torise to this contemplation, the soul must be worthyof it by nobility, must have liberated herself from

error, and must have withdrawn from the objects

that fascinate the glances of worldly souls, must have

immersed herself in a profound meditation, and shemust have succeeded in effecting the silence not onlyof the agitations of the body that enfolds her, and the

tumult of sensations, but also of all that surrounds

her. Therefore let silence be kept by all namely,

earth, air, sea, and even heaven. Then let the sovil

represent to herself the great Soul which, from all

sides,overflows into this immovable

mass, spreadingwithin it, penetrating into it intimately, illuminating

it as the rays of the sun light andgild^a

dark cloud.

Thus the universal Soul, by descending into this world

redeemed this great body from the inertia in which it

lay, imparting to it movement, life and immortality.

Eternally moved by an intelligent power, heaven be-




camea

beingfull of life and

felicity. The presenceof the Soul made an admirable whole from what be-

fore was no more than in inert corpse, water and

earth, or rather, darkness of matter, which, as Homer 5

says, was an object of horror for the divinities."

SOUL-POWER REVEALED IN THE SIMULTANEITYOF CONTROL OVER THE WORLD.

The nature and power of the Soul reveal themselves

still more gloriously in the way she embraces and

governs the world at will. She is present in every

point of this immense body, she animates all its parts,

great and small. Though these may be located in

different parts, she does not divide as they do, she

does not split up to vivify each individual. She vivi

fies all things simultaneously, ever remaining wholeand indivisible, resembling the intelligence from which

she was begotten by her unity and universality.6

It

is her power which contains this world of infinite magnitude and variety within the bonds of unity. Onlybecause of the presence of the Soul are heaven, sun,

and stars divinities; only because of her are we any

thing; for"a

corpseis viler

thanthe vilest

dung-hill."

7

AS LIFE TRANSFIGURES MATTER, SO THE UNIVERSAL SOUL GLORIFIES US.

But if the deities owe their divinity to the universal

Soul, she herself must be a divinity still more vener

able. Now our soul is similar to the universal Soul.

Strip her of all coverings, consider her in her pristine

purity, and you will see how precious is the nature of

the soul, how superior she is to everything that is

body.8 Without the soul, no body is anything but

earth. Even if you add to earth fire, water and air,

still there is nothing that need claim your veneration.

If it be the Soul that imparts beauty to the body, why



v.l] THREE PRINCIPAL HYPOSTASES 177

should we forget the souls within ourselves, while

prostituting our admiration on other objects? If *.t

be the soul that you admire in them, why do you not

admire her within yourselves?

THE SOUL AS THE HYPOSTATIC ACTUALIZATIONOF INTELLIGENCE.

3. Since the nature of the Soul is so divine and

precious, you may be assured of being able to reach

the divinity through her; with her you can ascend to

Him. You will not need to search for Him far from

yourself; nor will there be several intermediaries be

tween yourself and Him. To reach Him, take as guidethe divinest and highest part of the Soul, the- powerfrom which she proceeds, and by which she impingeson the intelligible world. Indeed, in spite of the

divinity which we have attributed to her, the Soul is

no more than an image of Intelligence. As the ex

terior word (speech) is the image of the (interior)

word (of thought?) of the soul, the Soul herself is

the word and actualization of Intelligence.9 She is

the life which escapes from Intelligence to form another hypostatic form of existence, just as the fire

contains the latent heat which constitutes its essence

("being"),and also the heat that radiates from it

outside. Nevertheless, the Soul does not entirely

issue from within Intelligence; she does partly reside

therein, but also forms (a nature) distinct therefrom.

As the Soul proceeds from Intelligence, she is intel

ligible; and the manifestation of her intellectual

power is discursive reason. From Intelligence the Soul

derives her perfection, as well as her existence; onlyin comparison with Intelligence does the Soul seem

imperfect. The Soul, therefore, is the hypostatic sub

stance that proceeds from Intelligence, and when the

Soul contemplates Intelligence the soul is reason actual-




ized. Indeed, while the soul contemplates Intelligence,

the Soul intimately possesses the things she thinks;

from her own resources she draws the actualizations

she produces; these intellectual and pure actualizations

are indeed the Soul s only characteristic activities.

Those of an inferior nature really proceed from a

foreign principle; they are passions.

THE SOUL S RELATION TO INTELLIGENCE IS THATOF MATTER TO FORM.

Intelligence therefore, makes the Soul diviner, be

cause Intelligence (as a father) begets the Soul, and

grants its (helpful) presence to the Soul. Nothingintervenes between them but the distinction between

their natures. The Soul is to Intelligence in the same

relation as that obtaining between form and matter. 10

Now the very matter of Intelligence is beautiful be

cause it has an intellectual form, and is simple. How

great then, must Intelligence be, if it be still greater

than the Soul.

THE INTELLIGIBLE WORLD IS THE ARCHETYPE

OF OURS.4. The dignity of Intelligence may be appreciated

in still another way. After having admired the magnitude and beauty of the sense-world, the eternal regu

larity of its movement, the visible or hidden divinities,

the animals and plants it contains, we may (taking our

direction from all this) ,rise to this world s archetype,

a more real World. There wemay contemplate

all

the intelligible entities which are as eternal as the

intelligible world, and which there subsist within per

fect knowledge and life. There preside pure intel

ligence and ineffable wisdom; there is located the real

Saturnian realm,11 which is nothing else than pure in

telligence. This indeed embraces every immortal es

sence, every intelligence, every divinity, every soul;




everything

there is eternal and immutable. Since its

condition is blissful, why should Intelligence change?Since it contains everything, why should it aspire to

anything? Since it is sovereignly perfect, what need of

development would it have? Its perfection is so much

completer, since it contains nothing but perfect things,

and since it thinks them; it thinks them, not because it

seeks to know them, but because it possesses them. 12Its

felicity is not in any way contingent on anything else;

itself is true eternity, of which time furnishes a moving

image of the sphere of the soul. Indeed, the soul s

action is successive, and divided by the different objects

that attract its attention. Now it thinks Socrates, and

then it thinks a horse; never does it grasp but one part

of reality, while intelligence always embraces all

things simultaneously. Intelligence, therefore, possesses all things immovable in identity. It is; it never

has anything but the present;13

it has no future, for it

already is all it could ever later become; it has no past,

for no intelligible entity ever passes away; all of them

subsist in an eternal present, all remain identical, satis

fied with their present condition. Each one is both

intelligence and existence; all together, they are uni

versal Intelligence, universal Existence.

ABOVE INTELLIGENCE AND EXISTENCE IS THEIRSIMULTANEOUS PRINCIPLE.

Intelligence exists (as intelligence) because it thinks

existence. Existence exists (as existence) because, on

being thought, it makes intelligence exist and thinks.14

There must therefore exist

somethingelse which makes

intelligence think, and existence exist, and which con

sequently is their common principle. In existence theyare contemporaneous and substantial, and can never

fail each other. As intelligence and existence consti

tute a duality, their common principle in this consub-

stantial unity that they form, and which is simul-




taneously existence and intelligence, the thinking subject and the object thought; intelligence as thinking

subject, and existence as object thought; for thought

simultaneously implies difference and identity.

THE SIX CATEGORIES FROM WHICH ALL THINGSARE DERIVED.

The first principles, therefore, are existence andintelligence, identity and difference, movement and

rest.15 Rest is the condition of identity; movement is

the condition of thought, since the latter presupposesthe differences of the thinking subject and of the object

thought, and because it is silent if reduced to unity.

The elements of thought (subject and object) must

thus stand in the relation of differences, but also in that

of unity, because they form a consubstantial unity, and

because there is a common element in all that is de

rived therefrom. Besides, here difference is nothingelse than distinction. The plurality formed by ele

ments of thought constitutes quantity and number;16

and the characteristic of every element, quality.17

From these first principles (the categories, that are

the genera of being) all things are derived.

THE SOUL AS NUMBER CONNECTED WITHINTELLIGENCE.

5. Thus the human soul is full of this divinity (of

Intelligence) ;she is connected therewith by these

(categories), unless the soul (purposely) withdraws

from (that intelligence). The Soul approachesIntel

ligence, and thus having been unified, the Soul wonders,

Who has begotten this unity? It must be He who is

simple, who is prior to all multiplicity, who imparts to

Intelligence its existence and manifoldness, and who

consequently produces number. Number, indeed, is

not something primitive; for the One is prior to the




"pair."

The latter ranks only second, being begottenand defined by unity, by itself being indefinite. As

soon as it is defined, it is a number in so far as it is a

"being";for these are the grounds on which the Soul

also is a number. 18

THOUGHT IS ACTUALIZATION OF SIGHT. ANDBOTH FORM BUT ONE THING.

Besides everything that is a mass or a magnitudecould not occupy the first rank in nature; those gross

objects which are by sensation considered beings must

be ranked as inferior. In seeds, it is not the moist

element that should be valued, but the invisible prin

ciple, number, and the (seminal) reason. Numberand

"pair"are only names for the reasons (ideas) and

intelligence. The "pair"is indeterminate so far as it

plays the part of substrate (in respect to unity). Thenumber that is derived from the pair, and the one,

constitute every kind of form, so that Intelligence has

a shape which is determined by the ideas19

begottenwithin it. Its shape is derived in one respect from the

one, and in another respect, from itself, just like

actualized sight. Thought, indeed, is actualized sight,and both these entities (the faculty and the actualiza

tion) form but one.

MYSTERY OR DERIVATION OF SECOND FROM FIRST.

6. How does Intelligence see, and what does it see?

How did the Second issue from the First, how was it

born from the First, so as that the Second might see

the First? For the soul now understands that these

principles must necessarily exist. She seeks to solve

the problem often mooted by ancient philosophers."If the nature of the One be such as we have outlined,

how does everything derive its hypostatic substance

(or, form of existence), manifoldness, duality, and




number from the First ? Why did the First not remainwithin Himself, why did He allow the leakage of mani-

foldness seen in all beings, and which we are seekingto trace back to the First?" We shall tell it. But

we must, to begin with, invoke the Divinity, not by the

utterance of words, but by raising our souls to Him in

prayer. Now the only way to pray is (for a person),when

alone,to advance towards the

One,who is en

tirely alone. To contemplate Unity, we must retire

to our inner sanctuary, and there remain tranquil above

all things (in ecstasy) ;then we must observe the

statues which as it were are situated outside of (soul

and intelligence), and in front of everything, the statue

that shines in the front rank (Unity), contemplatingit in a manner suitable to its nature (in the mysteries). 20

GENERATION IS THE RADIATION OF AN IMAGE.

All that is moved must have a direction towards

which it is moved; we must therefore conclude that that

which has no direction towards which it is moved must

be at a stand-still, and that anything born of this prin

ciplemust be born without

causingthis

principleto

cease being turned towards itself. We must, however,remove from our mind the idea of a generation operated within time, for we are here treating of eternal

things. When we apply to them the conception of

generation, we mean only a relation of causality and

effect. What is begotten by the One must be begotten

by Him without any motion on the part of the One;if He were moved, that which was begotten from Himwould, because of this movement, be ranked third,

instead of second. 21 Therefore, since the One is im

movable, He produces the hypostatic (form of exist

ence) which is ranked second, without volition, con

sent, or any kind of movement. What conception are

we then to form of this generation of Intelligence by




this immovable Cause? It is a radiation of

light

which

escapes without disturbing its quietness, like the

splendor which emanates perpetually from the sun,

without affecting its quietness, which surrounds it with

out leaving it. Thus all things, in so far as they remain

within existence, necessarily draw from their own es

sence("being")

and produce externally a certain

nature that depends on their power, and that is the

image of the archetype from which it is derived. 22

Thus does fire radiate heat; thus snow spreads cold.

Perfumes also furnish a striking example of this pro

cess; so long as they last, they emit exhalations in

which everything that surrounds them participates.

Everything that has arrived to its point of perfection

begets something. That which is eternally perfect be

gets eternally; andthat

whichit

begetsis eternal

thoughinferior to the generating principle. What then should

we think of Him who is supremely perfect? Does He

not beget? On the contrary, He begets that which,

after Him, is the greatest. Now that which, after Him,is the most perfect, is the second rank principle, In

telligence. Intelligence contemplates Unity, and needs

none but Him; but the Unity has no need of Intel

ligence. That which is begotten by the Principle

superior to Intelligence can be nothing if not Intelli

gence; for it is the best after the One, since it is su

perior to all other beings. The Soul, indeed, is the

word and actualization of Intelligence, just as Intelli

gence is word and actualization of the One. But the

Soul is an obscure word. Being an image of Intelli

gence, she must contemplate Intelligence, justas the

latter, to subsist, must contemplate the One. Intel

ligence contemplates the One, not because of any

separation therefrom, but only because it is after the

One. There is no intermediary between the One and

Intelligence, any more than between Intelligence and

the Soul. Every begotten being desires to unite with



184 WORKS OF PLOTINOS [iO

the principle that begets it, and loves it, especiallywhen the begetter and the begotten are alone. Nowwhen the begetter is supremely perfect, the begottenmust be so intimately united to Him as to be separatedfrom Him only in that it is distinct from Him.

INTELLIGIBLE REST IS THE DETERMINATION ANDFORM BY WHICH THEY SUBSIST.

7. We call Intelligence the image of the One. Let

us explain this. It is His image because Intelligence

is, in a certain respect, begotten by Unity, because

Intelligence possesses much of the nature of its father,

and because Intelligence resembles Him as light re

sembles the sun. But the One is not Intelligence; howthen can the hypostatic (form of existence) begotten

by the One be Intelligence ? By its conversion towards

the One, Intelligence sees Him; now it is this vision

23

which constitutes Intelligence. Every faculty that per

ceives another being is sensation or intelligence; but

sensation is similar to a straight line, while intelligence

resembles a circle.24

Nevertheless, the circle is divis

ible, while Intelligence is indivisible; it is one, but,

while being one, it also is the power of all things. Now

thought considers all these things (of which Intelli

gence is the power), by separating itself, so to speak,

from this power; otherwise, Intelligence would not

exist. Indeed, Intelligence has a consciousness of the

reach of its power, and this consciousness constitutes

its nature. Consequently, Intelligence determines its

own nature by the means of the power it derived from

the One; and at the same time Intelligence sees that

its nature ("being")is

a part of theentities

whichbelong to the One, and that proceed from Him. Intel

ligence sees that it owes all its force to the One, and

that it is due to Him that Intelligence has the privilege

of being a"being" (or, essence). Intelligence sees

that, as it itself is divisible, it derives from the One,

which is indivisible, all the entities it possesses, life and




thought; because the Oneis

not anyof these

things.Everything indeed is derived from the One, because

it is not contained in a determinate form; it simply is

the One, while in the order of beings Intelligence is

all things. Consequently the One is not any of the

things that Intelligence contains; it is only the principle

from which all of them are derived. That is whythey are

"being,"for they are already determined, and

each has a kind of shape. Existence should be com-templated, not in indetermination, but on the contraryin determination and rest. Now, for Intelligible en

tities, rest consists in determination, and shape by which

they subsist.

MYTHS OF SATURN, JUPITER AND RHEA.

The Intelligence that deserves to be called the purest

intelligence, therefore, cannot have been born from

any source, other than the first Principle. It must,

from its birth, have begotten all beings, all the beautyof ideas, all the intelligible deities; for it is full of the

things it has begotten; it devours them in the sense

that it itself retains all of them, that it does not allow

them to fall into matter, nor be born of Rhea. 25 Thatis the meaning of the mysteries and myths; "Saturn,

the wisest of the divinities, was born before Jupiter,

and devoured his children." Here Saturn represents

intelligence, big with its conceptions, and perfectly

pure.26

They add, "Jupiter,as soon as he was grown,

in his turnbegat."

As soon as Intelligence is perfect,

it begets the Soul, by the mere fact ofits

being perfect,and because so great a power cannot remain sterile.

Here again the begotten being had to be inferior to its

principle, had to represent its image, had, by itself, to

be indeterminate, and had later to be determined and

formed by the principle that begat it. What Intelli

gence begets is a reason, a hypostatic form of existence




whose nature it is to reason. The latter moves aroundIntelligence; is the light that surrounds it, the ray that

springs from it. On the one hand it is bound to In

telligence, fills itself with it; enjoys it, participates in

it, deriving its intellectual operations from it. On the

other hand, itis.

in contact with inferior things, or

rather, begets them. Being thus begotten by the Soul,

these things are necessarily less good than the Soul,

as we shall further explain. The sphere of divine

things ends with the Soul.

PLATO TEACHES THREE SPHERES OF EXISTENCE.*?

8. This is how Plato establishes three degrees in

the hierarchy of being27

: "Everything is around the

king of all." He is here speaking of first rank entities.

He adds, "What is of the second order is around the

second principle; and what is of the third order is

around the third principle." Plato 28 further says that

"God is the father of the cause." By cause, he means

Intelligence; for, in the system of Plato, it is Intelli

gence which plays the part of demiurgic creator. Plato

adds that it is this power that forms the Soul in the

cup.29 As the cause is intelligence, Plato applies the

name of father to the absolute Good, the principle su

perior to Intelligence and superior to"Being."

In

several passages he calls the Idea "existence and in

telligence."He therefore really teaches that Intelli

gence is begotten from the Good, and the Soul fromIntelligence. This teaching, indeed, is not new; it has

been taught from the most ancient times, but without

being brought out in technical terms. We claim to be

no more than the interpreters of the earlier philos

ophers, and to show by the very testimony of Plato that

they held the same views as we do.




THIS DOCTRINE TAUGHT BY PARMENIDES.

The first philosopher who taught this was Parmen-

ides, who identified Existence and Intelligence, and

who does not place existence among sense-objects,

"for, thought is the same thing as existence."30 He

adds31 that existence is immovable, although being

thought. Parmenides thus denies all corporeal movement in existence, so as that it might always remain

the same. Further, Parmenides32

compares existenceto a sphere, because it contains everything, drawing-

thought not from without, but from within itself. When

Parmenides, in his writings, mentions the One, he

means the cause, as if he recognized that this unity (of

the intelligible being) implied manifoldness. In the

dialogue of Plato he speaks with greater accuracy, and

distinguishesthree

principles:the First, the absolute

One; the second, the manifold one; the third, the one

and the manifold. He therefore, as we do, reaches

three natures.

ANAXAGORAS TEACHES THE SAME THING.

9. Anaxagoras, who teaches a pure and unmingled

Intelligence33

also insists that the first Principle is

simple, and that the One is separated from sense-

objects. But, as he lived in times too ancient, he has

not treated this matter in sufficient detail.

HERACLITUS ALSO TAUGHT THE SAME THING.

Heraclitus also taught the eternal and intelligible

One; for Heraclitus holds that bodies are ceaselessly

"becoming" (that is, developing),and that

theyare

in a perpetual state of flux.34

EMPEDOCLES TAUGHT THE SAME THING.

In the system of Empedocles, discord divides, and

concord unites; now this second principle is posited as

incorporeal, and the elements play the part of matter.35



[188 WORKS OF PLOTINOS

ARISTOTLE TAUGHT THE SAME THING.

Aristotle, who lived at a later period, says that the

First Principle is separated from (sense-objects), and

that it is intelligible.36 But when Aristotle says that

He thinks himself, Aristotle degrades Him from the

first rank. Aristotle also asserts the existence of other

intelligible entities in a number equal to the celestial

spheres, so that each one of them might have a prin

ciple of motion. About the intelligible entities, there

fore, Aristotle advances a teaching different from that

of Plato, and as he has no plausible reason for this

change, he alleges necessity. A well-grounded objection might here be taken against him. It seems morereasonable to suppose that all the spheres co-ordinated

in a single system should, all of them, stand in relation

to the One and the First. About Aristotle s views this

question also might be raised: do the intelligible entities

depend on the One and First, or are there several

principles for the intelligible entities? If the intel

ligible entities depend on the One, they will no doubt

be arranged symmetrically, as, in the sense-sphere,

are the spheres, each of which contains another, and

of which a single One, exterior to the others, containsthem, and dominates them all. Thus, in this case, the

first intelligible entity will contain all entities up there,

and will be the intelligible world. Just as the spheres

are not empty, as the first is full of stars, and as each

of the others also is full of them, so above their motors

will contain many entities, and everything will have

a more real existence. On the other hand, if each of

the intelligible entities is a principle, all will be con

tingent. How then will they unite their action, and

will they, by agreement, contribute in producing a

single effect, which is the harmony of heaven? Whyshould sense-objects, in heaven, equal in number their

intelligible motors? Again, why are there several of




these, since they are incorporeal, and since no matterseparates them from each other?

WHAT THE PYTHAGOREANS TAUGHT ON THESUBJECT.

Among ancient philosophers, those who most faith

fully followed the doctrine of Pythagoras, of his dis

ciples, and of Pherecydes, have specially dealt with

the intelligible.37 Some of them have committed

their opinions to their written works; others have set

them forth only in discussions that have not been preserved in writing. There are others of them, also, whohave left us nothing on the subject.

TO THE THREE PRINCIPLES IN THE UNIVERSE

MUST CORRESPOND THREE PRINCIPLES IN US.10. Above existence, therefore, is the One. This

has by us been proved as far as could reasonably be

expected, and as far as such subjects admit of demonstration. In the second rank are Existence and Intel

ligence; in the third, the Soul. But if these three prin

ciples, the One, Intelligence, and the Soul, as we have

said, obtain in nature, three principles must also ob

tain within us. I do not mean that these three prin

ciples are in sense-objects, for they are separate there

from; they are outside of the sense-world, as the three

divine principles are outside of the celestial sphere,

and, according to Plato s expression,38

they constitute

the "the interior man." Our soul, therefore, is some

thing divine; it has a nature different (from sense-

nature), which conforms to that of the universal Soul.Now the perfect Soul possesses intelligence; but wemust distinguish between the intelligence that reasons

(the discursive reason), and the Intelligence that fur

nishes the principles of reasoning (pure intelligence).

The discursive reason of the soul has no need, for

operation, of any bodily organ;39

in its operations, it




preservesall its

purity,so that it is

capableof

reasoning purely. When separated from the body, it must,

without any hesitation, be ranked with highest intel

lectual entities. There is no need of locating it in

space; for, if it exist within itself, outside of body, in

an immaterial condition, it is evidently not mingledwith the body, and has none of its nature. Conse

quently Plato40 says, The divinity has spread the

Soul around the world." What he here means is that

a part of the Soul remains in the intelligible world.

Speaking of our soul he also says, "she hides her head

in heaven."41 He also advises us to wean the soul

from the body; and he does not refer to any local

separation, which nature alone could establish. He

means that the soul must not incline towards the body,

must not abandon herself to the phantoms of imagination, and must not, thus, become alienated from rea

son. He means that the soul should try to elevate to

the intelligible world her lower part which is estab

lished in the sense-world, and which is occupied in

fashioning the body.42

THERE MUST BE AN OBJECTIVE JUSTICE AND

BEAUTY TO WHICH WE ARE INTIMATELYUNITED.

1 1. Since the rational soul makes judgments about

what is just or beautiful, and decides whether some

object is beautiful, whether such an action be just, there

must exist an immutable justice and beauty from which

discursive reason draws its principles.43

Otherwise,

how could such reasonings take place? If the soulat times reasons about justice and beauty, but at times

does not reason about them, we must possess within

ourselves the intelligence which, instead of reasoning,

ever possesses justice and beauty; further, we must

within us possess the cause and Principle of Intelli

gence, the Divinity, which is not divisible, which sub-




sists, not in any place, but in Himself; who is contemplated by a multitude of beings, by each of the

beings fitted to receive Him, but which remains dis

tinct from these beings, just as the centre subsists

within itself, while all the radii come from the circum

ference to centre themselves in it.44 Thus we our

selves, by one of the parts of ourselves, touch the

divinity, unite ourselves with Him and are, so to

speak,suspended from Him; and we are founded upon Him

(we are "edified" by Him) when we turn towards Him.

THESE PRINCIPLES LAST EVER; EVEN THOUGH WEARE DISTRACTED FROM THEM.

12. How does it happen that we possess principles

that are so elevated, almost in spite of ourselves, andfor the most part without busying ourselves about

them? For there are even men who never notice

them. Nevertheless these principles, that is, intelli

gence, and the principle superior to intelligence, which

ever remains within itself (that is, the One), these two

principles are ever active. The case is similar with

the soul.

Sheis

alwaysin

motion; but the operationsthat go on within her are not always perceived; theyreach us only when they succeed in making themselves felt. When the faculty that is active within us

does not transmit its action to the power that feels,

this action is not communicated to the entire soul;

however, we may not be conscious thereof because,

although we possess sensibility, it is not this power,

but the whole soul that constitutes the man. 45 So

long as life lasts, each power of the soul exercises its

proper function by itself; but we know it only whencommunication and perception occur. In order to

perceive the things within us, we have to turn our

perceptive faculties towards them, so that (our soul)

may apply her whole attention thereto.40 The person




thatdesires to hear

one sound must neglectall

others,and listen carefully on its approach. Thus we must

here close our senses to all the noises that besiege us,

unless necessity force us to hear them, and to pre

serve our perceptive faculty pure and ready to listen to

the voices that come from above.

1

By virtue of which, according to the Pythagoreans, the

dyad "dared" to issue from the

unity.2 That is the desire

which leads souls to separate

themselves primitively from

the divinity, and to unite them

selves to bodies. 3 We have

seen this elsewhere, i. 3.1.4 See

ii. 2.3.5 Iliad xx. 65. 6 See vi.

4.4.7 As said Heraclitus,

Plutarch, Banquet, iv. 4.8 See

iv. 7.10. 9 See i. 2.3; iv. 3.11.

10 See iii. 9.5.n As thought

Plato in his Cratylus, C. xi. 39,

and Macrobins, in his Commen-

taryon the Dream of Scipio, i.

11.12

Seei.8.2;ii.9.2.13 Seeiii.

7.2-4.14 See v. 9.2, 7.

15 See

vi. 2. 16 See vi. 8. 17 See vi.

3.18 See iii. 6.1.

19 Pun on

"ideas" and "forms."20 vi. 9.

11. This seems to refer to the

Roman temple of Isis in front

of which stood the statues of

the divinities, vi. 9.11. 21Wouldbe soul, instead of intelligence.

22See v. 4.1.

23See iii. 8.10.24 As thought Plato, Laws, x;

seeii. 2.3.25 See iii. 6.19. 26 AS

thought Plato, in the Cratylos,

C. xi. 39. 27 See Plato s Sec

ond Letter, 312; in English,

Burges, p. 482; i. 8.2.28 In

Timaeus, 34. 29 In his Tim-

aeus, C43. 3 As quoted

byClemens Al. Strom, vi.

p.627. 31 In Simplicius, Comm.in Phys. Arist., 9. 32 See

Plato s Sophists, C244. 33 See

ii. 7.7. 34 See ii. 1.2. 35 See

ii. 4.7. 3 <5 See Metaph. xii. 7.8.

37 Referring to Numenius s

work on "The Good," and on

the "Immateriality of the Soul."

38 In the Acibiades, C36. 30 See

i. 1.9. 4 In his Timaeus, C30.41 In the Phaedrus. 42 See iii.

6.5. 43 See v. 3.3.44 From

the circumference, see, iii. 8.7.

45Cicero, Tusculans, i. 22.

4 6 See i. 4.9. 47 This para

graph is founded on NumeniuL

36, 39.



v.2] OF GENERATION 193

FIFTH ENNEAD, BOOK TWO.

Of Generation, and of the Order of things that

Rank Next After the First.

WHY FROM UNITY THIS MANIFOLD WORLD WASABLE TO COME FORTH.

1. The One is all things, and is none of these

things. The Principle of all things cannot be all

things.1

lit is all things only in the sense that all

things coexist within it. But init, they "are" not yet,

but only "will be."2 How then could the manifold-

ness of all beings issue from the One, which is simple

and identical, which contains no diversity or duality?

It is just because nothing is contained within it, that

everything canissue

fromit.

3 In order that essence

might exist, the One could not be (merely) essence,

but had to be the father nf^essence, and essenceJiad-

to be its first-begotten. j"fts~ttieOne is perfect, and

acquires nothing, and has no need or desire, He has,

so to speak, superabounded, and this superabundancehas produced a different nature.

4 This different

nature of the One turned towards Him, and by its

conversion, arrived at the fulness (of essence) . thenit had the potentiality of contemplating itself, and

thus determined itself as Intelligence. Therefore, by

resting near the One, it became Essence; and by con

templating itself, became Intelligence. Then by fixing

itself within itself to contemplate itself, it simultane

ously became Essence-and-Intelligence.




BY SIMILAREFFUSION OF SUPERABUNDANCEINTELLIGENCE CREATED THE SOUL.

Just like the One, it was by effusion of its powerthat Intelligence begat something similar to itself.

Thus from Intelligence emanated an image, just as

Intelligence emanated from the One. The actualiza

tion that proceeds from Essence (and Inelligence) is

the universal Soul. She is born of Intelligence, anddetermines herself without Intelligence issuing from

itself, just as Intelligence itself proceeded from the

One without the One ceasing from His repose.

SIMILARLY THE UNIVERSAL SOUL, BY PROCESSION,BEGETS NATURE.

Nor does the universal Soul remain at rest, butenters in motion to beget an image of herself. Onthe one hand, it is by contemplation of the principle

from which she proceeds that she achieves fulness;

on the other hand, it is by advancing on a path dif

ferent from, and opposed to (the contemplation of

Intelligence), that she begets an image of herself,

sensation, and the nature of growth.6

Nevertheless,

nothing is detached or separated from the superior

principle which begets her. Thus the human soul

seems to reach down to within that of (plant) growth.7

She descends therein inasmuch as the plant derives

growth from her. Nevertheless it is not the whole

soul that passes into the plant. Her presence there is

limited to her descent towards the lower region, and

in so far as she produces another hypostatic substance,by virtue of her procession, which occurs by her con

descension to care for the things below her. But the

higher part of the Soul, that which depends on Intel

ligence, allows the Intelligence to remain within it

self. . . .

What 8 then does the soul which is in the plant



y.2] OF GENERATION 195

do? Does she not

beget anything?

She begets the

plant in which she resides. This we shall have to

study from another standpoint.

PROCESSION IS UNIVERSAL FROM HIGHEST TOLOWEST.

2. We may say that there is a procession from the

First to the last; and in this procession each occupies

its proper place. The begotten (being) is subordinated to the begetting (being). On the other hand,

it becomes similar to the thing to which it attaches,

so long as it remains attached thereto. When the soul

passes into the plant, there is one of her parts that

unites thereto (the power of growth) ;but besides, it

is only the most audacious9 and the most senseless

part of her that descends so low. When thesoul

passes into the brute, it is because she is drawn thereto

by the predominance of the power of sensation.10

When she passes into man, it is because she is led to

do so by the exercise of discursive reason, either bythe movement by which she proceeds from Intelli

gence, because the soul has a characteristic intellectual

power, and consequently has the power to determine

herself to think, and in general, to act.

THE SOUL IS NOWHERE BUT IN A PRINCIPLE THATIS EVERYWHERE AND NOWHERE.

Now, let us retrace our steps. When we cut the

twigs or the branches of a tree, where goes the plant-

soul that was in them? She returns to her principle,11

for no local difference separates her therefrom. Ifwe cut or burn the root, whither goes the power of

growth present therein? It returns to the plant-

power of the universal Soul, which does not change

place, and does not cease being where it was. It

ceases to be where it was only when returning to its

principle; otherwise, it passes into another plant; for




it is not obliged to contract, or to retire within itself.

If, on the contrary, it retire, it retires within the

superior power.12

Where, in her turn, does the latter

reside? Within Intelligence, and without changing,

location; for the Soul is not within any location, and

Intelligence still less. Thus the Soul is nowhere; she

is in a principle which, being nowhere, is everywhere.13

THE SOUL MAY REMAIN IN AN INTERMEDIATE LIFE.

If, while returning to superior regions, the soul

stops before reaching the highest, she leads a life of

intermediary nature.14

ALL THESE THINGS ARE IN INTELLIGENCE. WITHOUT CONSTITUTING IT.

All these entities (the universal Soul and her images)are Intelligence, though none of them constitutes In

telligence. They are Intelligence in this respect, that

they proceed therefrom. They are not Intelligence in

this~ respect that only by dwelling within itself Intel

ligence has given birth to them. 15

THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS ONE IMMENSE CONCAT

ENATION OF ALL THINGS.

Thus, in the universe, life resembles an immense

chain in which every being occupies a point, begetting

the following being, and begotten by the preceding

one, and ever distinct, but not separate from the

(upper) generating Being, and the (lower) begotten

being into which it passes without being absorbed.

1 See iii. 9.9. 2 See iii. 8.9. iii. 4.2. n See iv. 4.29; iv. 5.7.

s Hi. 9.4.4

iii. 8.9. 5 See v. 1 2 That is, in the principal

1.7.G See i. 1.8; iv. 9.3.

7 See power of the universal soul,

iii. 4.1, 2.8 Fragment belong- see ii. 3.18. 13 See vi. 5; that

ing here, apparently, but mis- is, within intelligence.14 Be-

placed at end of next para- tween celestial and terrestrial

graph.9 See v. 1.1.

* See life; see iii. 4.6. * 5 See in. 8.7,



ii.4] OF MATTER 197

SECOND ENNEAD, BOOK FOUR.

Of Matter.

MATTER AS SUBSTRATE AND RESIDENCE OF FORMS.

1. Matter is a substrate (or subject) underlying

nature, as thought Aristotle,1 and a residence for

forms. Thus much is agreed upon by all authors whohave studied matter, and who have succeeded in form

ing a clear idea of this kind of nature; but further

than this, there is no agreement. Opinions differ as

to whether matter is an underlying nature (as thought

Aristotle),2 as to its receptivity, and to what it is

receptive.

THE STOIC CONCEPTION OF MATTER.

(The Stoics, who condensed Aristotle s categories

to four, substrate, quality^modeand relation),

3 whoadmit the existence of nothing else than bodies, ac

knowledge no existence other than that contained bybodies. They insist that there is but one kind of

matter, which serves as substrate to the elements,

and that it constitutes"being";

that all other things

are only affections ("passions") of mattter, or modified matter: as are the elements. The teachers of

this doctrine do not hesitate to introduce this matter

into the (very nature of the) divinities, so that their

supreme divinity is no more than modified matter.4

Besides, of matter they make a body, calling it a

"quantityless body,"still attributing to it magnitude.




MATTER ACCORDING TO THE PYTHAGOREANS,PLATONISTS AND ARISTOTELIANS.

Others (Pythagoreans, Platonists and Aristotelians)

insist that matter is incorporeal. Some even dis

tinguish two kinds of matter, first, the (Stoic) sub

strate of bodies, mentioned above; the other matter

being of a superior nature, the substrate of forms and

incorporeal beings.

THE ARISTOTELIAN INTELLIGIBLE MATTER.

2. Let us first examine whether this (latter intel

ligible) matter exists, how it exists, and what it is.

If (the nature) of matter be something indeterminate,

and shapeless, and if in the perfect (intelligible beings)

there must not be anything indeterminate or shape

less, it seems as if there could not be any matter inthe intelligible world. As every (being) is simple, it

could not have any need of matter which, by uniting

with something else, constitutes something com

posite. Matter is necessary in begotten beings, which

make one thing arise out of another; for it is such

beings that have led to the conception of matter (as

thought Aristotle).5

It may however be objectedthat in unbegotten beings matter would seem useless.

Whence could it have originated to enter in (among

intelligible beings), and remain there? If it were

begotten, it must have been so by some principle; if

it be eternal, it must have had several principles; in

which case the beings that occupy the first rank would

seem to be contingent. Further, if (in those beings)

form come to join matter, their union will constitutea body, so that the intelligible (entities) will be cor

poreal.

INTELLIGIBLE MATTER IS NOT SHAPELESS.

3. To this it may first be answered that the in

determinate should not be scorned everywhere, nor



fi.4]OF MATTER 199

that whichis

conceived of as shapeless,even if this

be the substrate of the higher and better entities; for

we might call even the soul indeterminate, in respect

to intelligence and reason, which give it a better shapeand nature. Besides, when we say that intelligible

tilings are composite (of matter and form), this is

not in the sense in which the word is used of bodies.

Even reasons would thus be called composite, and bytheir actualization form another alleged composite,

nature, which aspires to form. If, in the intelligible

world, the composite tend toward some other prin

ciple, or depend thereon, the difference between this

composite and bodies is still better marked. Besides,

the matter of begotten things ceaselessly changes

form, while the matter of the intelligible entities ever

remains identical. Further, matter here below is

subject to other conditions (than in the intelligible

world). Here below, indeed, matter is all things only

partly, and is all things only successively; conse

quently, amidst these perpetual changes nothing is

identical, nothing is permanent. Above, on the con

trary, matter is all things simultaneously, and possess

ing all things, could not transform itself. Conse

quently, matter is never shapeless above; for it is not

even shapeless here below. Only the one (intelligible

matter) is situated differently from the other (sense-

matter). Whether, however, (intelligible matter) be

begotten, or be eternal, is a question that cannot be

determined until we know what it is.

THE NATURE OF IDEAS IMPLIES AN INDIVIDUAL

FORM, WHICH AGAIN IMPLIES A SUBSTRATE.

4. Granting now the existence of ideas, whose

reality has been demonstrated elsewhere,6 we must

draw their legitimate consequences. Necessarily ideas

have something in common, inasmuch as they are

manifold; and since they differ from each other, they




must also havesomething

individual.

Nowthe in

dividuality of any idea, the difference that distin

guishes it from any other, consists of its particular

shape. But form, to be received, implies a substrate,

that might be determined by the difference. There is

therefore always a matter that receives form, and

there is always a substrate (even in ideas, whose matter

is genus, and whose form is its difference).

RELYING ON THE PUN BETWEEN WORLD ANDADORNMENT, PLOTINOS CONCLUDES THAT IF

THE INTELLIGIBLE WORLD BE THE IMAGEOF THIS, IT MUST ALSO BE A COMPOSITE

OF FORM AND MATTER.

Besides, our world is an image of the intelligible

world. Now as our world is acomposite

of matter

(and form), there must be matter also on high (that

is, in the intelligible world). Otherwise, how could

we call the intelligible world "kosmos" (that is, either

world, or adornment), unless we see matter (receiv

ing) form therein? How could we find form there,

without (a residence) that should receive it? That

world is indivisible, taken in an absolute sense; but

in a relative sense, is it divisible? Now if its parts bedistinct from each other, their division or distinction

is a passive modification of matter; for what can be

divided, must be matter. If the multitude of ideals

constitute an indivisible being, this multitude, which

resides in a single being, has this single being as sub

strate, that is, as matter and is its shapes. This single,

yetvaried substrate conceives of itself as

shapeless,before conceiving of itself as varied. If then by

thought you abstract from it variety, forms, reasons,

and intelligible characteristics, that which is prior is

indeterminate and shapeless; then there will remain

in this (subject) none of the things that are in it and

with it.



ii.4] OF MATTER 201

THE BOTTOM OF EVERYTHINGIS

MATTER. WHICHIS RELATIVE DARKNESS.

5. If, we were to conclude that there were no

matter in intelligible entities, because they were im

mutable, and because, in them, matter is always combined with (shape), we would be logically compelledto deny the existence of matter in bodies; for the

matter of bodies always has a form, and every bodyis always complete (containing a form and a matter).Each body, however, is none the less composite, and

intelligence observes its doubleness; for it splits until it

arrives to simplicity, namely, to that which can no

longer be decomposed; it does not stop until it reaches

the bottom things. Now the bottom of each thing is

matter. Every matter is (lark, because the reason (the

form) is the light, and because intelligence is the

reason. 7When, in an object, intelligence considers

the reason, it considers as dark that which is below

reason, or light. Likewise, the eye, being luminous,

and directing its gaze on light and on the colors which

are kinds of light, considers what is beneath, and hid

den by the colors, as dark and material.

INTELLIGIBLE MATTER CONSISTS OF REAL BEING.

ESPECIALLY AS SHAPED.

Besides, there is a great difference between the

dark bottom of intelligible things and that of sense-

objects; there is as much difference between the matter

of the former and of the latter as there is betweentheir form. The divine matter, on receiving the form

that determines it, possesses an intellectual and de

terminate life. On the contrary, even when the matter

of the bodies becomes something determinate, it is

neither alive nor thinking; it is dead, in spite of its

borrowed beauty.8 As the shape (of sense-objects)




is

onlyan

image,their substrate also is

only an image.But as the shape (of intelligible entities) possessesveritable (reality), their substrate is of the same nature.

We have, therefore, full justification for calling matter

"being,"that is, when referring to intelligible matter;

for the substrate of intelligible entities really is"being,"

especially if conceived of together with its inherent

(form). For"being"

is the luminous totality (or

complex of matter and form). To question the etern

ity of intelligible matter is tantamount to questioningthat of ideas; indeed, intelligible entities are begottenin the sense that they have a principle; but they are

non-begotten in the sense that their existence had no

beginning, and that, from all eternity, they derive

their existence from their principle. Therefore they

donot resemble the

thingsthat are

always becoming,as our world; but, like the intelligible world, theyever exist.

THE CATEGORIES OF MOVEMENT AND DIFFERENCEAPPLIED TO INTELLIGIBLES.

The difference that is in the intelligible world ever

produces matter; for, in that world, it is the difference

that is the principle of matter, as well as of primarymotion. That is why the latter is also called differ

ence, because difference and primary motion were

born simultaneously.9

The movement and difference, that proceed from

the First(the Good),

areindeterminate,

and need

it, to be determinate. Now they determine each

other when they turn towards it. Formerly, matter

was as indeterminate as difference; it was not goodbecause it was not yet illuminated by the radiance of

the First. Since the First is the source of all light,

the object that receives light from the First does not



ii.4] OF MATTER 203

always possess light; this object differs from light, andpossesses light as something alien, because it derives

light from some other source. That is the nature of

matter as contained in intelligible (entities). Perhapsthis treatment of the subject is longer than necessary.

SUBSTRATE IS DEMANDED BY TRANSFORMATION

OF ELEMENTS, BY THEIR DESTRUCTION ANDDISSOLUTION.

6. Now let us speak of bodies. The mutual trans

formation of elements demonstrates that they must

have a substrate. Their transformation is not a com

plete destruction; otherwise (a general) "being"

1

would perish in nonentity. Whereas, what is begotten

would have passed from absolute non-entityto es

sence; and all change is no more than the passing of

one form into another (as thought Aristotle).11

It pre

supposes the existence of permanent (subject) which

would receive the form of begotten things only after

having lost the earlier form. This is demonstrated by

destruction, which affects only something composite;

therefore every dissolved object must have been a

composite. Dissolution proves it also. For instance,

where a vase is dissolved, the result is gold; on being

dissolved, gold leaves water; and so analogy would

suggest that the dissolution of water would result in

something else, that is analogous to its nature. Finally,

elements necessarily are either form, or primary mat

ter, or the composites of form and matter. However,

they cannot be form, because, without matter, theycould not possess either mass nor magnitude. Nor

can they be primary matter, because they are subject

to destruction. They must therefore be composites of

form and matter; form constituting their shape and

quality, and matter a substrate that is indeterminate,

because it is not a form.




THE VIEWS OF EMPEDOCLES AND ANAXAGORASON MATTER.

7. (Acceding to Aristotle),12

Empedocles thinks

matter consists of elements; but this opinion is refuted

by the decay to which they are exposed. (Accordingto Aristotle),

13Anaxagoras supposes that matter is a

mixture and, instead of saying that this (mixture) is

capable of becomingall

things, heinsists

thatit

contains all things in actualization. Thus he annihilates

the intelligence that he had introduced into the world;

for, according to him, it is not intelligence that endows

all the rest with shape and form; it is contemporaneouswith matter, instead of preceding it.

14 Now it is im

possible for intelligence to be the contemporary of

matter, for if mixture participate in essence, then must

essence precede it; if, however, essence itself be the

mixture, they will need some third principle. There

fore if the demiurgic creator necessarily precede, what

need was there for the forms in miniature to exist in

matter, for intelligence to unravel their inextricable

confusion, when it is possible to predicate qualities of

matter, because matter had none of its own, and thus

to subject matter entirely to shape? Besides, howcould (the demiurgic creator) then be in all?

REFUTATION OF ANAXIMANDER S VIEWS ABOUTMATTER.

(Anaximander)15 had better explain the consistence

of the infinity by which he explains matter. Does he,

by infinity, mean immensity? In reality this would beimpossible. Infinity exists neither by itself, nor in anyother nature, as, for instance, the accident of a body.The infinite does not exist by itself, because each of its

parts would necessarily be infinite. Nor does the in

finite exist as an accident, because that of which it

would be an accident would, by itself, be neither in-



ii.4]OF MATTER 205

finite, nor simple; and consequently, would not bematter.

REFUTATION OF DEMOCRITUS S ATOMS AS

EXPLANATIONS OF MATTER.

(According to Aristotle s account of Democritus),16

neither could the atoms fulfil the part of matter be

cause they are nothing (as before thought Cicero).17

Every body is divisible to infinity. (Against the sys

tem of the atoms) might further be alleged the contin

uity and humidity of bodies. Besides nothing can exist

without intelligence and soul, which could not be com

posed of atoms. Nothing with a nature different from

the atoms could produce anything with the atoms, be

cause no demiurgic creator could produce something

with a matter that lacked continuity. Many other objections against this system have and can be made;but further discussion is unnecessary.

MATTER IS NOTHING COMPOSITE. BUT BY NATURESIMPLE AND ONE.

8. What then is this matter which is one, con

tinuous,

and without qualities? Evidently, it could

not be a body, since it has no quality; if it were a body,

it would have a quality. We say that it is the matter

of all sense-objects, and not the matter of some, and

the form of others, just as clay is matter, in respect to

the potter, without being matter absolutely (as thought

Aristotle).18 As we are not considering the matter of

any particular object, but the matter of all things, we

would not attribute to its nature anything of what falls

under our senses no quality, color, heat, cold, light

ness, weight, density, sparseness, figure or magnitude;for magnitude is something entirely different from

being large, and figure from the figured object. Matter

therefore is not anything composite, but something

simple, and by nature one (according to the views of




Plato and Aristotle combined).19

Only thus couldmatter be deprived of all properties (as it is).

MATTER AND THE INFORMING PRINCIPLE MUSTBE CONTEMPORARIES TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR

MUTUAL RELATIONS.

The principle which informs matter will give it form

as something foreign to its nature; it will also intro

duce magnitude and all the real properties. Other

wise, it would be enslaved to the magnitude of matter,

and could not decide of the magnitude of matter, and

magnitude would be dependent on the disposition of

matter. A theory of a consultation between it and the

magnitude of matter would be an absurd fiction. Onthe contrary, if the efficient cause precede matter,

matter will be exactlyas desired

bythe efficient

cause,and be capable of docilely receiving any kind of form,

including magnitude. If matter possessed magnitude,it would also possess figure, and would thus be rather

difficult to fashion. Form therefore enters into matter

by importing into it (what constitutes corporeal being) ;

now every form contains a magnitude and a quantity

which are determined by reason("being"),

and with

reason. That is why in all kinds of beings, quantityis determined only along with form; for the quantity

(the magnitude) of man is not the quantity of the

bird. It would be absurd to insist on the difference

between giving to matter the quantity of a bird, and

impressing its quality on it, that quality is a reason,

while quantity is not a form; for quantity is both

measure and number.

ANTI-STOIC POLEMIC AGAINST THE CORPOREITYOF MATTER AND QUANTITY.

9. It may be objected that it would be impossibleto conceive of something without magnitude. The

fact is that not everything is identical with quantity.



ii.4]OF MATTER 207

Essenceis

distinct from quantity;for

many otherthings beside it exist. Consequently no incorporealnature has any quantity. Matter, therefore, is incor

poreal. Besides, even quantity itself is not quantative,

which characterizes only what participates in quan

tity (in general) ;a further proof that quantity is a

form, as an object becomes white by the presence of

whiteness; and as that which, in the animal, produces

whiteness and the different colors, is not a varied color,

but a varied reason; likewise that which producesa quantity is not a definite quantity, but either quantityin itself, or quantity as such, or the reason of quantity.

Does quantity, on entering into matter extend matter,

so as to give it magnitude ? By no means, for matter

had not been condensed. Form therefore imparts to

matter the magnitude which it did not possess, just asform impresses on matter the quality it lacked. 20

BY ABSTRACTION, THE SOUL CAN FIND AND DES-

CR^-THE QUALITY-LESS THING-IN-ITSELF: THIS

PROCESS IS CALLED "BASTARD REASONING."

10. (Some objector) might ask how one could

conceive of matter without quantity? This might be

answered by a retort. How then do you (as you do)

manage to conceive of it without quality? Do you

again object, by what conception or intelligence could

it be reached ? By the very indetermination of the soul.

Since that which knows must be similar to that which

is known (as Aristotle21

quotes fromEmpedocles),

the

indeterminate must be grasped by the indeterminate.

Reason, indeed, may be determined in respect to the in

determinate; but the glance which reason directs on

the indeterminate itself is indeterminate. If every

thing were known by reason and by intelligence,

reason here tells us about matter what reason

rightly should tell us about it. By wishing to

conceive of matter in an intellectual manner, intelli-




gence arrives at a state which is the absence of intel

ligence, or rather, reason forms of matter a "bastard"

or"illegitimate" image, which is derived from the

other, which is not true, and which is composed of the

other (deceptive material called) reason. That is whyPlato 22 said that matter is perceived by a "bastard

reasoning."In what does the indetermination of the

soul consist? In an absolute ignorance, or in a com

plete absence of all knowledge? No: the indeterminatecondition of the soul implies something positive (besides something negative). As for the eye, darkness

is the matter of all invisible color, so the soul, by

making abstraction in sense-objects of all things that

somehow are luminous, cannot determine what then

remains; and likewise, as the eye, in darkness (becomesassimilated to darkness), the soul becomes assimilated

to what she sees. Does she then see anything else?

Doubtless, she sees something without figure, without

color, without light, or even without magnitude.23

If

this thing had any magnitude, the soul would lend it a

form.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MENTAL BLANK ANDIMPRESSION OF THE SHAPELESS.

(An objector might ask) whether there be identity

of conditions between the soul s not thinking, and her

experience while thinking of matter? By no means;when the soul is not thinking of anything, she neither

asserts anything, nor experiences anything. When she

thinks of matter, she experiences something, she re

ceives the impression of the shapeless. When she pre

sents to herself objects that possess shape and magnitude, she conceives of them as composite; for she sees

them as distinct (or, colored?)and determined by qual

ities they contain. She conceives of both the totality

and its two constituent elements. She also has a clear

perception, a vivid sensation of properties inherent (in



ii.4] OF MATTER 209

matter). On the contrary, the soul receives only an

obscure perception of the shapeless subject, for there is

no form there. Therefore, when the soul considers

matter in general, in the composite, with the qualities

inherent in this composite, she separates them, ana

lyzes them, and what is left (after this analysis), the

soul perceives it vaguely, and obscurely, because it is

something vague and obscure; she thinksit, without

really thinking it. On the other hand, as matter doesnot remain shapeless, as it is always shaped, within

objects, the soul always imposes on matter the form

of things, because only with difficulty does she sup

port the indeterminate, since she seems to fear to

fall out of the order of beings, and to remain long in

nonentity.

THE COMPOSITION OF A BODY NEEDS A SUBSTRATE.

11. (Following the ideas of Aristotle,24

Plotinos

wonders whether some objector) will ask whether the

composition of a body requires anything beyond ex

tension and all the other qualities? Yes: it demandsa substrate to receive them (as a residence). This

substrate is not a mass; for in this case, it would be anextension. But if this substrate have no extension, howcan it be a residence (for form) ? Without extension,

it could be of no service, contributing neither to formnor qualities, to magnitude nor extension. It seems

that extension, wherever it be, is given to bodies bymatter. Just as actions, effects, times and movements,

though they do not imply any matter, nevertheless are

beings, it would seem that the elementary bodies donot necessarily imply matter (without extension), beingindividual beings, whose diverse substance is constituted

by the mingling of several forms. Matter without ex

tension, therefore, seems to be no more than a mean

ingless name.




MATTER AS THE IMAGE OF EXTENSION. CAN YET

BE RESIDENCE OF FORM.(Our answer to the above objection is this:) To

begin with, not every residence is necessarily a mass,unless it have already received extension. The soul,

which possesses all things, contains them all simul

taneously. If it possessed extension, it would possessall things in extension. Consequently matter receives

all it contains in

extension, becauseit is

capable thereof. Likewise in animals and plants there is a corre

spondence between the growth and diminution of their

magnitude, with that of their quality. It would be

wrong to claim that magnitude is necessary to matter

because, in sense-objects, there exists a previous magnitude, on which is exerted the action of the forming

principle; for the matter of these objects is not pure

matter, but individual matter (as said Aristotle). 25

Matter pure and simple must receive its extension fromsome other principle. Therefore the residence of formcould not be a mass; for in receiving extension, it

would also receive the other qualities. Matter there

fore, is the image of extension, because as it is primary

matter, it possesses the ability to become extended.

Peopleoften

imaginematter as

empty extension;con

sequently several philosophers have claimed that mat

ter is identical with emptiness. I repeat: matter is the

image of extension because the soul, when considering

matter, is unable to determine anything, spreads into

indetermination, without being able to circumscribe or

mark anything; otherwise, matter would determine

something. This substrate could not properly be called

big or little; it is simultaneously big and little (as said

Aristotle).26

It is simultaneously extended and non-

extended, because it is the matter of extension. If it

were enlarged or made smaller, it would somehowmove in extension. Its indetermination is an extension

which consists in being the very residence of extension,



H.4] OF MATTER 211

but really in being only imaginary extension, as hasbeen explained above. Other beings, that have no

extension, but which are forms, are each of them de

terminate, and consequently imply no other idea of

extension. On the contrary, matter, being indetermin

ate, and incapable of remaining within itself, being

moved to receive all forms everywhere, ever being

docile, by this very docility, and by the generation (to

which it adapts itself), becomes manifold. It is in

this way its nature seems to be extension.

POLEMIC AGAINST MODERATUS OF GADES, FORMSDEMAND A RESIDENCE, VASE, or LOCATION.

12. Extensions therefore contribute to the con

stitutions of bodies; for the forms of bodies are in ex

tensions. These forms produce themselves not in extension (which is a form), but in the substrate that has

received extension. If they occurred in extension, in

stead of occurring in matter, they would nevertheless

have neither extension nor (hypostatic) substance; for

they would be no more than reasons. Now as reasons

reside in the soul, there would be no body. Therefore,

in the sense-world, the multiplicity of forms must have

a single substrate which has received extension, and

therefore must be other than extension. All things

that mingle form a mixture, because they contain

matter; they have no need of any other substrate, be

cause each of them brings its matter along with it. But

(forms) need a receptacle (a residence), a "vase"

(or stand), a location (this in answer to the objection

at the beginning of the former section) .

Now locationis posterior to matter and to bodies. Bodies, there

fore, presuppose matter. Bodies are not necessarily

immaterial, merely because actions and operations are.

In the occurrence of an action, matter serves as sub

strate to the agent; it remains within him without

itself entering into action; for that is not that which is




sought by the agent. One action does not change into

another, and consequently has no need of containing

matter; it is the agent who passes from one action to

another, and who, consequently, serves as matter to

the actions (as thought Aristotle).27

NOT EVEN CORPOREITY INHERES IN MATTER

WHICHIS

REACHEDBY BASTARD REASONING.

Matter, therefore, is necessary to quality as well as

to quantity, and consequently, to bodies. In this sense,

matter is not an empty name, but a substrate, thoughit be neither visible nor extended. Otherwise, for the

same reason, we would be obliged also to deny qualities and extension; for you might say that each of these

things, taken in itself, is nothing real. If these thingspossess existence, though their existence be obscure,

so much the more must matter possess existence,

though its existence be neither clear nor evident to the

senses. Indeed, matter cannot be perceived by sight,

since it is colorless; nor by hearing, for it is soundless;

nor by smell or taste, because it is neither volatile nor

wet. It is not even perceived by touch, for it is not a

body. Touch cognizes only body, recognizes that it is

dense or sparse, hard or soft, wet or dry; now none

of these attributes is characteristic of matter. Thelatter therefore can be perceived only by a reasoningwhich does not imply the presence of intelligence,

which, on the contrary, implies the complete absence

of matter; which (unintelligent reasoning therefore)

deserves the

nameof "bastard"

(or, illegitimate)reasoning.

28Corporeity itself,

29is not characteristic

of matter. If corporeity be a reason (that is, by a pun,a form ), it certainly differs from matter, both being

entirely distinct. If corporeity be considered when it

has already modified matter and mingled with it, it is a

body; it is no longer matter pure and simple.



ii.4] OF MATTER 213

THESUBSTRATE

IS

NOTA

QUALITY COMMON TOALL ELEMENTS; FOR THUS IT WOULD NOT BEINDETERMINATE.

13. Those who insist that the substrate of things is

a quality common to all elements are bound to explainfirst the nature of this quality; then, how a qualitycould serve as substrate; how an unextended, im

material(

?

) qualitycould

be perceivedin

somethingthat lacked extension; further, how, if this quality be

determinate, it can be matter; for if it be somethingindeterminate, it is no longer a quality, but matter itself

that we seek.

EVEN THIS PRIVATION MIGHT BE CONSIDERED AQUALITY; BUT SUCH A USE OF THE TERM WOULD

DESTROY ALL COHERENT REASONING.

Let us grant that matter has no quality, because, byvirtue of its nature, it does not participate in a qualityof any other thing. What, however, would hinder

this property, because it is a qualification in matter,from participating in some quality? This would be a

particular and distinctive characteristic, which consists

of the privation of all other things (referring to Aris

totle) ?30 In man, the privation of something may be

considered a quality; as, for instance, the privation of

sight is blindness. If the privation of certain thingsinhere in matter, this privation is also a qualification

for matter. If further the privation in matter extend

to all things, absolutely, our objection is still better

grounded, for privation is a qualification. Such anobjection, however, amounts to making qualities and

qualified things of everything. In this case quantity,as well as

"being,"would be a quality. Every qualified

thing must possess some quality. It is ridiculous to

suppose that something qualified is qualified by whatitself has no quality, being other than quality.




BY A PUN BETWEEN "DIFFERENCE" AND "OTHER

NESS," PLOTINOS DEFINES THE CHARACTERISTICOF MATTER AS BEING A DISPOSITION TO

BECOME SOMETHING ELSE.

Some one may object that that is possible, because

"being something else" is a quality. We would then

have to ask whether the thing that is other be otherness-

in-itself? If it be otherness-in-itself, it is so not be

cause it is something qualified, because quality is not

something qualified. If this thing be only other, it is

not such by itself, it is so only by otherness, as a thingthat is identical by identity. Privation, therefore, is

not a quality, nor anything qualified, but the absence

of quality or of something else, as silence is the absence

of sound. Privation is something negative; qualifica

tion is

something positive.

Theproperty

of matter is

not a form; for its property consists precisely in havingneither qualification nor form. It is absurd to insist

that it is qualified, just because it has no quality; this

would be tantamount to saying that it possessed ex

tension by the very fact of its possessing no extension.

The individuality (or, property) of matter is to be

what it is. Its characteristic is not an attribute; it con

sists in a disposition to become other things. Not onlyare these other things other than matter, but besides

each of them possesses an individual form. The onlyname that suits matter is "other,"

or rather, "others,"

because the singular is too determinative, and the

plural better expresses indetermination.

PRIVATION IS A FORM OF MATTER.

14. Let us now examine if matter be privation, or

if privation be an attribute of matter. If you insist

that privation and matter are though logically distinct,

substantially one and the same thing, you will have to

explain the nature of these two things, for instance, de

fining matter without defining privation, and con-



ii.4] OF MATTER 215

versely. Either, neither of these two things implies theother, or they imply each other reciprocally, or onlyone of them implies the other. If each of them can be

defined separately, and if neither of them imply the

other, both will form two distinct things, and matter

will be different from privation, though privation be an

accident of matter. But neither of the two must even

potentially be present in the definition of the other.

Is their mutual relation the same as that of a stub nose,

and the man with the stub nose (as suggested by

Aristotle) ?31 Then each of these is double, and there

are two things. Is their relation that between fire and

heat? Heat is in fire, but fire is not necessarily con

tained in heat; thus matter, having privation (as a

quality), as fire has heat (as a quality), privation will

be a form of matter, and has a substrate different fromitself, which is matter. 32 Not in this sense, therefore,

is there a unity (between them).

PRIVATION IS NONENTITY, AND ADDS NO NEWCONCEPT.

Are matter and privation substantially identical, yet

logically distinct, in this sense that privation does notsignify the presence of anything, but rather its absence?

That it is the negation of beings, and is synonymouswith nonentity? Negation adds no attribute; it limits

itself to the assertion that something is not. In a cer

tain sense, therefore, privation is nonentity.

BEING SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL, BUT LOGICALLY

DISTINCT IS NONSENSE.

If matter be called nonentity in this sense that it is

not essence, but something else than essence, there is

still room to draw up two definitions, of which one

would apply to the substrate, and the other to the

privation, merely to explain that it is a disposition to




becomesomething

else? It would be better to ac

knowledge that matter, like the substrate, should be

defined a disposition to become other things. If the

definition of privation shows the indetermination of

matter, it can at least indicate its nature. But we could

not admit that matter and privation are one thing in

respect to their substrate, though logically distinct; for

how could there be a logical distinction into two

things, if a thing be identical with matter as soon as it

is indeterminate, indefinite, and lacking quality?

MATTER AS THE INFINITE IN ITSELF.

15. Let us further examine if the indeterminate, or

infinite, be an accident, or an attribute of some other

nature; how it comes to be an accident, and whether

privationever can become an accident. The

thingsthat are numbers and reasons are exempt from all in

determination, because they are determinations, orders,

and principles of order for the rest. Now these prin

ciples do not order objects already ordered, nor do theyorder orders. The thing that receives an order is dif

ferent from that which gives an order, and the prin

ciples from which the order is derived are determina

tion, limitation and reason. In this case, that whichreceives the order and the determination must neces

sarily be the infinite (as thought Plato).33 Now that

which receives the order is matter, with all the things

which, without being matter, participate therein, and

play the part of matter. Therefore matter is the infinite

itself.34 Not accidentally is it the infinite; for the infinite

is no accident. Indeed, every accident must be a reason;

now of what being can the infinite be an accident? Of

determination, or of that which is determined? Nowmatter is neither of these two. Further, the infinite

could not unite with the determinate without destroy

ing its nature. The infinite, therefore, is no accident

of matter (but is its nature, or"being").

Matter is



ii.4]OF MATTER 217

the infinite itself. Even in the intelligible world, matter

is the infinite.

THE INFINITE MAY BE EITHER IDEAL OR REAL,

INFINITE OR INDEFINITE.

The infinite seems born of the infinity of the One,either of its power, or eternity; there is no infinity in

the One, but the One is creator of the infinite. Howcan there be infinity simultaneously above and below

(in the One and in matter) ? Because there are two

infinities (the infinite and the indefinite; the infinite

in the One, the indefinite in matter). Between themobtains the same difference as the archetype and its

image.35

Is the infinite here below less infinite? Onthe contrary, it is more so. By the mere fact that the

image is far from veritable "being," it is more infinite.

Infinity is greater in that which is less determinate (as

thought Aristotle).36 Now that which is more distant

from good is further in evil. Therefore the infinite on

high, possessing the more essence, is the ideal infinite;

here below, as the infinite possesses less essence, be

cause it is far from essence and truth, it degeneratesinto the

image

of essence, and is the truer

(indefinite)infinite.

MATTER AS THE INFINITE IN ITSELF.

Is the infinite identical with the essence of the in

finite? There is a distinction between them wherethere is reason and matter; where however matter is

alone, they must be considered identical; or, better,

we may say absolutely that here below the infinite does

not occur; otherwise it would be a reason, which is

contrary to the nature of the infinite. Therefore

matter in itself is the infinite, in opposition to reason.

Just as reason, considered in itself, is called reason, so

matter, which is opposed to reason by its infinity, and




which is nothing else (than matter), must be called

infinite.

MATTER IS NONESSENTIAL OTHERNESS.

16. Is there any identity between matter and other

ness ? Matter is not identical with otherness itself, but

with that part of otherness which is opposed to real

beings, and to reasons. It is in this sense that one can

say of nonentity thatit is

something, thatit is identical

with privation, if only privation be the opposition to

things that exist in reason. Will privation be de

stroyed by its union with the thing of which it is an

attribute? By no means. That in which a (Stoic)

"habit" occurs is not itself a"habit,"

but a privation.

That in which determination occurs is neither deter

mination, nor that which is determined, but the infinite,

so far as it is infinite. How could determination unite

with the infinite without destroying its nature, since

this infinite is not such by accident? It would destroythis infinite, if it were infinite in quantity; but that is

not the case. On the contrary, it preserves its"being"

for it, realizes and completes its nature; as the earth

which did not contain seeds (preserves its nature) whenit

.receivessome of

them;or the

female, whenshe is

made pregnant by the male. The female, then, does

not cease being a female; on the contrary she is so far

more, for she realizes her nature("being").

INDIGENCE IS NECESSARILY EVIL.

Does matter continue to be evil when it happens to

participate in the good ? Yes, because it was formerly

deprived of good, and did not possess it. That whichlacks something, and obtains it, holds the middle be

tween good and evil, if it be in the middle between the

two. But that which possesses nothing, that which is

in indigence, or rather that which is indigence itself,

must necessarily be evil; for it is not indigence of



ii.4]OF MATTER 219

wealth,but

indigenceof

wisdom,of

virtue,

ofbeauty,of vigor, of shape, of form, of quality. How, indeed,

could such a thing not be shapeless, absolutely uglyand evil?

THE RELATION OF BOTH KINDS OF MATTER TOESSENCE.

In the intelligible world, matter is essence; for what

is above it (the One), is considered as superior to es

sence. In the sense-world, on the contrary, essence is

above matter; therefore matter is nonentity, and

thereby is the only thing foreign to the beauty of es

sence.

iMet. vii. 3. 2 Met. v. 8.

3 Diog. Laertes vii. 61. 4 See

Cicero, de Nat. Deor. i. 15.

5 Met. v<iii. 1.6 See vi. 7. 7 See

i. 8.4. 8 See i. 8.15. 9Plotinos s

six categories are identity, dif

ference, being, life, motion and

rest. See v. 1; v. 2; vi. 2.

I Not the absolute eternal

existence, nor the totality

of the constitutive qualities

of a thing, as in ii. 6.

II Met. xii. 2.12 Met. i. 3.

13 Met. xi. 6. i^ See v. 1.9.

15 As reported by Diog. Laert.

ii. 2. 16 Met i. 4; vii. 13. i?de

Nat. Deor. i. 24. i8 Met. viii. 4.

i 9 In the Timaeus, C49-52, Met.vii. 3. 20 See ii, 7.3. 21 in Met.iii. 4 and de Anima i. 2.5; ii. 5.

22 In the Timaeus. 23 See i.

8.9; ii. 4.12. 24 M et. v ii. 3, see

iii. 6.7-19. 25 Met viii. 4.26 Met i. 6. 27 Met vii. 7.58 See ii. 4.10. 20 See ii. 7.3.

3 Met. xii. 2. si Met vi. 1;

vii. 5. 32 See i. 2.1. 33 Tn the

Philebus, 252. 3.4 The samedefinition is given of "evil" in

i. 8.10-14. 35 See i. 8.8.

36Physics, iii. 7.




THIRD ENNEAD, BOOK NINE.

Fragments About the Soul, the Intelligence, and the

Good.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND THEEXISTING ANIMAL.

1. Plato says, The intelligence sees the ideas com

prised within the existing animal." He adds, The

demiurge conceived that this produced animal was to

comprise beings similar and equally numerous to those

that the intelligence sees in the existing animal."

Does Plato mean that the ideas are anterior to intel

ligence, and that they already exist when intelligence

thinks them? We shall first have to examine whether

the animal is identical with intelligence, or is some

thing different. Now that which observes is intelli

gence; so the Animalhimself should then be

called,not intelligence, but the intelligibile. Shall we there

from conclude that the things contemplated by intel

ligence are outside of it? If so, intelligence possesses

only images, instead of the realities themselves that

is, if we admit that the realities exist up there; for,

according to Plato, the veritable reality is up there

within the essence, in which everything exists in itself.

RELATION BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND THEINTELLIGIBLE.

(This consequence is not necessary). Doubtless In

telligence and the intelligible are different; they are

nevertheless not separated. Nothing hinders us from



iii.9] FRAGMENTS ABOUT THE SOUL 221

saying that both form but one, and that they areseparated only by thought; for essence is one, but it

is partly that which is thought, and partly that which

thinks. When Plato says that intelligence sees the

ideas, he means that it contemplates the ideas, not in

another principle, but in itself, because it possesses the

intelligible within itself. The intelligible may also be

the intelligence, but intelligence in the state of repose,

of unity, of calm, while Intelligence, which perceivesthis Intelligence which has remained within itself, is

the actuality born therefrom, and which contemplatesit. By contemplating the intelligible, intelligence is

assimilated thereto and is its intelligence, because In

telligence thinks the intelligible it itself becomes in

telligible by becoming assimilated thereto, and on the

other hand also something thought.It is (intelligence), therefore, which conceived the

design in producing in the universe the four kinds of

living beings (or elements), which it beholds up there.

Mysteriously, however, Plato here seems to presentthe conceiving-principle as different from the other two

principles, while others think that these three prin

ciples, the animal itself (the universal Soul), Intel

ligence and the conceiving principle form but a single

thing. Shall we here, as elsewhere, admit that opinions

differ, and that everybody conceives the three prin

ciples in his own manner?

THE WORLD-SOUL IS THE CONCEIVING-PRINCIPLE.

We have already noticed two of these principles

(namely, intelligence, and the intelligible, which is

called the Animal-in-itself, or universal Soul). Whatis the third? It is he who has resolved to produce, to

form, to divide the ideas that intelligence sees in the

Animal. Is it possible that in one sense intelligence is

the dividing principle, and that in another the dividing

principle is not intelligence? As far as divided things




soul is in a body; on the contrary, he locates the bodyin the soul.

INDIVIDUAL SOULS, HOWEVER, MAY BE SAID TOCOME AND GO.

As to individual souls, they come from somewhere,for they proceed from the universal Soul; they also

have a place whither they

maydescend, or where they

may pass from one body into another; they can like

wise reascend thence to the intelligible world.

THE UNIVERSAL SOUL EVER REMAINS IN THEINTELLIGIBLE.

The universal Soul, on the contrary, ever resides in

the elevated region where her nature retains her; and

the universe located below her participates in her just

as the object which receives the sun s rays participates

therein.

HOW THE SOUL INCARNATES.

The individual soul is therefore illuminated when she

turns towards what is above her; for then she meets

the essence; on the contrary, when she turns towards

what is below her, she meets non-being. This is what

happens when she turns towards herself; on wishingto belong to herself, she somehow falls into emptiness,

becomes indeterminate, and produces what is below

her, namely, an image of herself which is non-being

(the body). Now the image of this image (matter),is indeterminate, and quite obscure; for it is entirely

unreasonable, unintelligible, and as far as possible fromessence itself. (Between intelligence and the body)the soul occupies an intermediary region, which is her

own proper domain; when she looks at the inferior

region, throwing a second glance thither, she gives a

form to her image (her body) ; and, charmed by this

image, she enters therein.




BY ITS POWER, THE ONE IS EVERYWHERE.

4. How does manifoldness issue from Unity? Unityis everywhere; for there is no place where it is not;

therefore it fills everything. By Him exists manifold-

ness; or rather, it is by Him that all things exist. If the

One were only everywhere, He would simply be all

things; but, as, besides, He is nowhere, all things exist

by Him, because He is everywhere; but simultaneously

all things are distinct from Him, because He is nowhere.

Why then is Unity not only everywhere, but also no

where? The reason is, that Unity must be above all

things, He must fill everything, and produce every

thing, without being all that He produces.

THE SOUL RECEIVES HER FORM FROM

INTELLIGENCE.5. The soul s relation to intelligence is the same

as that of sight to the visible object; but it is the inde

terminate sight which, before seeing, is nevertheless

disposed to see and think; that is why the soul bears

to intelligence the relation of matter to form.

WE THINK AN INTELLECTUAL NATURE BYTHINKING OURSELVES.

6. When we think, and think ourselves, we see a

thinking nature; otherwise, we would be dupes of an

illusion in believing we were thinking. Consequently,if we think ourselves, we are, by thinking ourselves,

thinking an intellectual nature. This thought presup

posesan anterior

thoughtwhich

impliesno movement.

Now, as the objects of thought are being and life, there

must be, anterior to this being, another being; and

anterior to this life, another life. This is well-known

to all who are actualized intelligences. If the intelli

gences be actualizations which consist in thinking

themselves, we ourselves are the intelligible by the real




foundation of our essence, and the thought that wehave of ourselves gives us its image.

THE ONE IS SUPERIOR TO REST AND MOTION.

7. The First (or One) is the potentiality of movement and of rest; consequently, He is superior to both

things. The Second principle relates to the First byits motion and its

rest;it is

Intelligence, because,differ

ing from the First, it directs its thought towards Him,while the First does not think (because He comprisesboth the thinking thing, and the thing thought) ;

Hethinks himself, and, by that very thing, He is defective,

because His good consists in thinking, not in its"hypo-

stasis" (or existence).

OF ACTUALITY AND POTENTIALITY.8. What passes from potentiality to actuality, and

always remains the same so long as it exists, approaches

actuality. It is thus that the bodies such as fire maypossess perfection. But what passes from potentiality

to actuality cannot exist always, because it contains

matter. On the contrary, what exists actually, and

whatis

simple,exists

always. Besides, whatis actual

may also in certain respects exist potentially.

THE GOOD IS SUPERIOR TO THOUGHT; THE HIGHEST DIVINITIES ARE NOT THE SUPREME.

9. The divinities which occupy the highest rank

are nevertheless not the First; for Intelligence (fromwhich proceed the divinities of the highest rank, that

is, the perfect intelligences) is (or, is constituted by)all the intelligible essences, and, consequently, com

prises both motion and rest. Nothing like this is in the

First. He is related to nothing else, while the other

things subsist in Him in their rest, and direct their

motion towards Him. Motion is an aspiration, and the

First aspires to nothing. Towards what would He, in



ii.2] MOVEMENT OF THE HEAVENS 227

SECOND ENNEAD, BOOK TWO.

About the Movement of the Heavens.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOVEMENTS OF THEHEAVENS.

1. Why do the heavens move in a circle? Be

cause they imitate Intelligence. But to what does this

movement belong? To the Soul, or to the body? Does

it occur because the Soul is within the celestial sphere,which tends to revolve about her? Is the Soul

within this sphere without being touched thereby?Does she cause this sphere to move by her own motion ?

Perhaps the Soul which moves this sphere should not

move it in the future, although she did so in the past;

that is, the soul made it remain immovable, instead of

ceaselessly imparting to it a circular movement. Per

haps the Soul herself might remain immovable; or, if

she move at all, it will at least not be a local movement.

THREE KINDS OF MOVEMENT.

How can the Soul impart to the heavens a local

movement, herself possessing a different kind of

motion? Perhaps the circular movement, when considered by itself, may not seem a local movement.

If then it be a local movement only by accident,

what is its own nature, by itself? It is the reflec

tion upon itself, the movement of consciousness,

of reflection, of life; it withdraws nothing from the

world, it changes the location of nothing, while em-




bracing all. Indeed, the power which governs the

universal Animal (or world) embraces everything, andunifies everything. If then it remained immovaole, it

would not embrace everything either vitally or

locally; it would not preserve the life of the interior

parts of the body it possesses, because the bodily life

implies movement. On the contrary, if it be a local

movement, the Soul will possess a movement only

such as it admits of. She will move, not only as soul,but as an animated body, and as an animal

;her move

ment will partake both of the movement proper to the

soul, and proper to the body. Now the movement

proper to the body is to mobilize in a straight line;

the movement proper to the Soul, is to contain; while

both of these movements result in a third, the circular

movement which includes both transportation and

permanence.

FIRE MOVES STRAIGHT ONLY PRELIMINARILY.

To the assertion that the circular movement is a

corporeal movement, it might be objected that one

can see that every body, even fire, moves in a straight

line. However, the fire movesin

a straightline

onlytill it reaches the place assigned to it by the universal

order (it constitutes the heavens, which are its proper

place) . By virtue of this order its nature is permanent,and it moves towards its assigned location. Why then

does the fire as soon as it has arrived there, not abide

there quiescently ? Because its very nature is constant

movement; if it went in a straight line, it would dis

sipate; consequently, it necessarily possesses a circular

motion. That is surely apbyidential arrangement.

Providence placed fire within itself (because it con

stitutes the heavens, which are its location) ;so that,

as soon as it finds itself in the sky it must spontaneously

move in a circle.



ii:2] MOVEMENT OF THE HEAVENS 22$

WHY SOUL ASSUMES A CIRCULAR MOTION.

We might further say that, if the fire tended to movein a straight line, it must effect a return upon itself

in the only place where it is possible (in the heavens),inasmuch as there is no place outside of the world

where it could go. In fact there is no further place,

beyond the celestial fire, for itself constitutes the last

place in the universe; it therefore moves in a circle

in the place at its disposal; it is its own place, but notto remain immovable, but to move. In a circle, the

centre is naturally immovable; and were the circum

ference the same, it would be only an immense centre.

It is therefore better that the fire should turn around

the centre in this living and naturally organized body.Thus the fire will tend towards the centre, not in stop

ping,

for it would lose its circular

form,but in

movingitself around it; thus only will it be able to satisfy its

tendency (towards the universal Soul). However, if

this power effect the movement of the body of the

universe, it does not drag it like a burden, nor giveit an impulsion contrary to its nature. For nature is

constituted by nothing else than the order established

by the universal Soul. Besides, as the whole Soul is

everywhere, and is not divided into parts, it endowsthe sky with all the ubiquity it can assimilate, which

can occur only by traversing all of it. If the Soul re

mained immovable in one place, she would remain

immovable as soon as theheavens reached this place;but as the Soul is everywhere, they would seek to reach

her everywhere. Can the heavens never reach the

Soul? On thecontrary, they

reach herceaselessly;for the Soul, in ceaselessly attracting them to herself,

endues them with a continual motion by which she

carries them, not towards some other place, but to

wards herself, and in the same place, not in a straight

line, but in a circle, and thus permits them to possessher in all the places which she traverses.




WHY THE HEAVENS DO NOT REMAIN STILL.

The heavens would be immovable if the Soul rested,

that is, if she remained only in the intelligible world,where everything remains immovable. But because

the Soul is in no one determinate place, and because

the whole of her is everywhere, the heavens move

through the whole of space; and as they cannot goout of themselves, they must move in a circle.

HOW OTHER BEINGS MOVE. 1

2. How do the other beings move? As none of

them is the whole, but only a part, consequently, each

finds itself situated in a particular place. On the con

trary, the heavens are the whole; they constitute the

place which excludes nothing, because it is the universe.

As to the law according to which men move, each ofthem, considered in his dependence towards the uni

verse, is a part of all; considered in himself, he is a

whole.

WHY THE HEAVENS MOVE IN A CIRCLE.

Now, if the heavens possess the Soul, wherever they

are, what urges them to move in a circle? Surely be

cause the Soul is not exclusively in a determinate place

(and the world does not exclusively in one place desire

to possess her). Besides, if the power of the Soul

revolve around the centre, it is once more evident that

the heavens would move in a circle.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CENTRE OF THE SOUL

AND THE BODY.Besides, when we speak of the Soul, we must not

understand the term "centre" in the same sense as

when it is used of the body. For the Soul, the centre

is the focus of (the intelligence) whence radiates a

second life (that is, the Soul) ;as to the body, it is a



ii.2] MOVEMENT OF THE HEAVENS 231

locality (the centre of the world). Since, however,both soul and body need a centre, we are forced to use

this word in an analogous meaning which may suit

both of them. Speaking strictly, however, a centre

can exist only for a spherical body, and the analogyconsists in this, that the latter, like the Soul, effects a

reflection upon itself. In this case, the Soul moves

around the divinity, embraces Him, and clings to Himwith all her might; for everything depends from Him.

But, as she cannot unite herself to Him, she movesaround Him.

THE ADDITION OF OUR BODIES INTRODUCESCONFLICTING MOTIONS.

Why do not all souls act like the universal Soul?

They do act like her, but do so only in the placewhere they are. Why do our bodies not move in a

circle, like the heavens? Because they include an

element whose natural motion is rectilinear; because

they trend towards other objects, because the sphericalelement2

in us can no longer easily move in a circle,

because it has become terrestrial, while in the celestial

region is was light and movable enough. How indeed

could it remain at rest, while the Soul was in motion,whatever this movement was? This spirit (ual body)

which, within us, is spread around the soul, does the

same thing as do the heavens. Indeed, if the divinity

be in everything, the Soul, which desires to unite herself

to Him, must move around Him, since He resides in

no determinate place. Consequently, Plato attributes

to the stars, besides the revolution which they performin common with the universe, a particular movementof rotation around their own centre. Indeed, every

star, in whatever place it may be, is transported with

joy while embracing the divinity; and this occurs not

]hy reason, but by a natural necessity.




HOW MOTION IS IMPARTED TO LOWER EXISTENCES.

3. One more subject remains to be considered.

The lowest power of the universal Soul (the inferior

soul),3

rests on the earth, and thence radiates abroad

throughout the universe. The (higher, or celestial)

power (of the world-Soul) which, by nature, pos

sesses sensation, opinion, and reasoning, resides in the

celestial spheres, whence it dominates the inferior

power, and communicates life to it. It thereby moves

the inferior power, embracing it in a circle; and it

presides over the universe as it returns (from the

earth) to the celestial spheres. The inferior power,

being circularly embraced by the superior power, re

flects upon itself, and thus operates on itself a con

version by which it imparts a movement of rotation

to the body within which it reacts. (This is howmotion starts) in a sphere that is at rest: as soon as a

part moves, the movement spreads to the rest of it,

and the sphere begins to revolve. Not otherwise is

our body; when our soul begins to move, as in joy, or

in the expectation of welfare, although this movementbe of a kind very different from that natural to a body,

this soul-movement produces local motion in the body.Likewise the universal Soul, on high, while approach

ing the Good, and becoming more sensitive (to its

proximity), thereby impresses the body with the

motion proper to it, namely, the local movement.

(Our own human) sense- (faculty), while receiving its

good from above, and while enjoying the pleasures

proper to its nature, pursues the Good, and, inasmuch

as the Good is everywhere present, it is borne everywhere. The intelligence is moved likewise; it is simul

taneously at rest and in motion, reflecting upon itself.

Similarly the universe moves in a circle, though simul

taneously standing still.

1 This paragraph interrupts in the Timaeus, C79. 3 The

the argument. 2 Plato s spirit inferior soul, see ii. 3.18.



iii.4]OF OUR INDIVIDUAL GUARDIAN 233

THIRD ENNEAD, BOOK FOUR.

Of Our Individual Guardian.

OUTLINE OF NATURES IN THE UNIVERSE.

Other principles remain unmoved while producingand exhibiting their

("hypostases,"substantial acts,

or) forms of existence. The (universal) Soul, how

ever, is in motion while producing and exhibiting her

("substantial act," or) forms of existence, namely, the

functions of sensation and growth, reaching down as

far as (the sphere of the) plants. In us also does the

Soul function, but she does not dominate us, constitut

ing only a part of our nature. She does, however,

dominate in plants, having as it were remained alone

there.

Beyondthat

sphere, however,nature

begetsnothing; for beyond it exists no life, begotten (matter)

being lifeless. All that was begotten prior to this was

shapeless, and achieved form only by trending towards

its begetting principle, as to its source of life. Conse

quently, that which is begotten cannot be a form of

the Soul, being lifeless, but must be absolute in de

termination. The things anterior (to matter, namely,

the sense-power and nature), are doubtless indeter

minate, but only so within their form; the are not abso

lutely indeterminate; they are indeterminate only

in respect of their perfection. On the contrary,

that which exists at present, namely, (mattter),

is absolutely indeterminate. When it achieves perfec

tion, it becomes body, on receiving the form suited to




its

power. This (form) is the receptacle of the principle which has begotten it, and which nourishes it.

It is the only trace of the higher things in the body,which occupies the last rank amidst the things below.

AFTER DEATH, MAN BECOMES WHAT HE HAS LIVED.

2. It is to this (universal) Soul especially that maybe applied these words of Plato: 1 The general Soul

cares for all that is inanimate." The other (individual)

souls are in different conditions. The Soul (adds

Plato), circulates around the heavens successively as

suming divers forms"; that is, the forms of thought,sense or growth. The part which dominates in the soul

fulfills its proper individual function; the others remaininactive, and somehow seem exterior to them. In man,it is not the lower powers of the soul that dominate.

They do indeed co-exist with the others. Neither is it

always the best power (reason), which always domin

ates; for the inferior powers equally have their place.

Consequently, man (besides being a reasonable being)is also a sensitive being, because he possesses sense-

organs. In many respects, he is also a vegetative

being; for his body feeds and grows just like a plant.

All these powers (reason, sensibility, growth), there

fore act together in the man; but it is the best of themthat characterizes the totality of the man (so that he

is called a "reasonable being"). On leaving the bodythe soul becomes the power she had preponderatingly

developed. Let us therefore flee from here below, andlet us raise ourselves to the intelligible world, so as not

to fall into the pure sense-life, by allowing ourselves

to follow sense-images, or into the life of growth, by

abandoning ourselves to the pleasures of physical love,

and to gormandizing; rather, let us rise to the intel

ligible world, to the intelligence, to the divinity!



iii.4] OF OUR INDIVIDUAL GUARDIAN 235

LAWS OF TRANSMIGRATION.

Those who have exercised their human faculties are

re-born as men. Those who have made use of their

senses only, pass into the bodies of brutes, and par

ticularly into the bodies of wild animals, if they have

yiedled themselves to the transports of anger; so that,

even in this case, the difference of the bodies theyanimate is proportioned to the difference of their in

clinations. Those whose only effort it was to satisfytheir desires and appetites pass into the bodies of

lascivious and gluttonous animals. 2Last, those who

instead of following their desires or their anger, have

rather degraded their senses by their inertia, are re

duced to vegetate in plants; for in their former exist

ence they exercised nothing but their vegetative power,and they worked at nothing but to make trees of

themselves. 3 Those who have loved too much the

enjoyments of music, and who otherwise lived purely,

pass into the bodies of melodious birds. Those whohave reigned tyrannically, become eagles, if they have

no other vice.4

Last, those who spoke lightly of

celestial things, having kept their glance directed up

wards, are changed into birds which usually fly towards

the high regions of the air.5

He who has acquiredcivil virtues again becomes a man; but if he does not

possess them to a sufficient degree, he is transformed

into a sociable animal, such as the bee, or other animal

of the kind.

OUR GUARDIAN IS THE NEXT HIGHER FACULTYOF OUR BEING.

3. What then is our guardian? It is one of the

powers of our soul. What is our divinity? It is also

one of the powers of our soul. (Is it the power which

acts principally in us as some people think?) For the

power which acts in us seems to be that which leads

us, since it is the principle which dominates in us. Is




that the guardian to which we have been allotted during the course of our life?

7 No: our guardian is the

power immediately superior to the one that we ex

ercise, for it presides overpur

life without itself beingactive. The power which is active in us is inferior to

the one that presides over our life, and it is the one

which essentially constitutes us. If then we live on

the plane of the sense-life, our guardian is reason; if

we live on the rational plane, our guardian will be the

principal superior to reason (namely, intelligence) ;

it will preside over our life, but it itself does not act,

leaving that to the inferior power. Plato truly said

that "we choose our guardian"; for, bythe kind of life

that we prefer, we choose the guardian that presidesover our life. Why then does He direct us? Hedirects us

duringthe course of our mortal life

(becausehe is given to us to help us to accomplish our (destiny) ;

but he can no longer direct us when our destiny is ac

complished, because the power over the exercise of

which he presided allows another power to act in his

place (which however is dead, since the life in which

it acted is terminated). This other power wishes to

act in its turn, and, after having established its pre

ponderance, it exercises itself during the course of anew life, itself having another guardian. If then weshould chance to degrade ourselves by letting an in

ferior power prevail in us, we are punished for it.

Indeed, the evil man degenerates because the powerwhich he has developed in his life makes him descend

to the existence of the brute, by assimilating him to it

byhis morals. If we could follow the

guardianwho

is superior to him, he himself would become superior

by sharing his life. He would then take as guide a partof himself superior to the one that governs him, then

another part, still more elevated until he had arrived

at the highest. Indeed, the soul is several things, or

rather, the soul is all things; she is things both inferior




and superior; she contains all the degrees of life. Eachof us, in a certain degree, is the intelligible world; byour inferior part we are related to the sense-world,

and by our superior part, to the intelligible world; weremain there on high by what constitutes our intelligible

essence; we are attached here below by the powerswhich occupy the lowest rank in the soul. Thus wecause an

emanation,or rather an actualization which

implies no loss to the intelligible, to pass from the in

telligible into the sense-world.

THE INTELLIGIBLE DOES NOT DESCEND; IT IS THESENSE-WORLD THAT RISES.

4. Is the power which is the act of the soul alwaysunited to a body? No; for when the soul turns to

wards the superior regions, she raises this power with

her. Does the universal (Soul) also raise with herself

to the intelligible world the inferior power which is

her actualization (nature)? No: for she does not

incline towards her low inferior portion, because she

neither came nor descended into the world; but, white

she remains in herself, the body of the world comes to

unite with her, and to offer itself to receive her light s

radiation; besides, her body does not cause her any

anxiety, because it is not exposed to any peril. Does

not the world, then, possess any senses? "It has no

sight" (says Plato8

)"for it has no eyes. Neither has it

ears, nostrils, nortongue."

Does it, then, as we, possess the consciousness of what is going on within it?

As, within the world, all things go on uniformly ac

cording to nature, it is, in this respect, in a kind of

repose; consequently, it does not feel any pleasure.The power of growth exists within it without being

present therein; and so also with the sense-power. Be

sides, we shall return to a study of the question. For

the present, we have said all that relates to the question in hand.




THE GUIDANCE OF THE GUARDIAN DOES NOTINTERFERE WITH MORAL RESPONSIBILITY.

5. But if (before coming on to the earth) the soul

chooses her life and her guardian, how do we still

preserve our liberty? Because what is called "choice"

designates in an allegorical manner the character of

the soul, and her general disposition everywhere.

Again, it is objected that if the character of the soul

preponderate, if the soul be dominated by that partwhich her former life rendered predominantly active,

it is no longer the body which is her cause of evil; for

if the character of the soul be anterior to her union

with the body; if she have the character she has

chosen; if, as said (Plato), she do not change her

guardian,it is

not here below thata

man may becomegood or evil. The answer to this is, that potentiallyman is equally good or evil. (By his choic^) howeverhe may actualize one or the other.

THE SOUL HAS THE POWER TO CONFORM TO HERCHARACTER THE DESTINY ALLOTED TO HER.

What then would happen if a virtuous man should

have a body of evil nature, or a vicious man a body of

a good nature? The goodness of the soul has moreor less influence on the goodness of the body. Exterior circumstances cannot thus alter the character

chosen by the soul. When (Plato) says that the lots

are spread out before the souls, and that later the dif

ferent kinds of conditions are displayed before them,and that the fortune of each results from the choice

made amidst the different kinds of lives present a

choice evidently made according to her character

(Plato) evidently attributes to the soul the power of

conforming to her character the condition allotted to

her.




OUR GUARDIAN IS BOTH RELATED TO US, AND

INDEPENDENT OF US.

Besides, our guardian is not entirely exterior to us;

and, on the other hand, he is not bound to us, and is

not active in us; he is ours, in the sense that he has a

certain relation with our soul; he is not ours, In the

sense that we are such men, living such a life under his

supervision. This is the meaning of the terms used

(by Plato) in the Timaeus.9

If these be taken in theabove sense, all explains itself; if not, Plato contradicts

himself.

OUR GUARDIAN HELPS US TO CARRY OUT THEDESTINY WE HAVE CHOSEN.

One can still understand thus why he says that our

guardian helpsus to fulfil the

destinywe have chosen.

In fact, pesiding over our life, he does not permit us to

descend very far below the condition we have chosen.

But that which then is active is the principle below the

guardian and which can neither transcend him, nor

equal him; for he could not become different from

what he is.

THAT MAN IS VIRTUOUS WHOSE HIGHEST PRINCIPLE IS ACTIVE WITHIN HIM.

6. Who then is the virtuous man? He in whomis active the highest part of the soul. If his guardiancontributed to his actions, he would not deserve beingcalled virtuous. Now it is the Intelligence which is

active in the virtuous man. It is the latter, then, whois a

guardian,or lives

accordingto

one; besides,his

guardian is the divinity. Is this guardian above Intel

ligence? Yes, if the guardian have, as guardian, the

principle superior to Intelligence (the Good). But whydoes the virtuous man not enjoy this privilege since the

beginning? Because of the trouble he felt in falling

into generation. Even before the exercise of reason,




he has within him a desire which leads him to the

things which are suitable to him. But does this desire

direct with sovereign influence? No, not with sover

eignty; for the soul is so disposed that, in such circum

stances becoming such, she adopts such a life, and

follows such an inclination.

BETWEEN INCARNATIONS IS THE TIME OF JUDGMENT AND EXPIATION.

(Plato) says that the guardian leads the soul to the

hells,10 and that he does not remain attached to the

same soul, unless this soul should again choose the

same condition. What does the guardian do before

this choice? Plato teaches us that he leads the soul to

judgment, that after the generation he assumes againthe same form as before; and then as if another exist

ence were then beginning, during the time between

generations, the guardian presides over the chastise

ments of the souls, and this period is for them not so

much a period of life, as a period of expiation.

EVEN THE SOULS ENTERING INTO ANIMALBODIES HAVE A GUARDIAN.

Dothe souls that

enterinto the

bodies of brutes alsohave a guardian? Yes, doubtless, but an evil or stupid

one.

CONDITION OF SOULS IN THE HIGHER REGIONS.

What is the condition of the souls that have raised

themselves on high? Some are in the sensible world,others are outside of it. The souls that are in the

sense-world dwell in the sun, or in some other planet,or in the firmament, according as they have more or

less developed their reason. We must, indeed, remember that our soul contains in herself not only the in

telligible world, but also a disposition conformable to

the Soul of the world. Now as the latter is spread out



iii.4]OF OUR INDIVIDUAL GUARDIAN 241

in the movable spheres and in the immovable sphereby her various powers, our soul must possess powers

conformable to these, each of which exercise their

proper function. The souls which rise from here below

into the heavens go to inhabit the star which harmon

izes with their moral life, and with the power which

they have developed; with their divinity, or their

guardian. Then they will have either the same guard

ian, or the guardian which is superior to the powerwhich they exert. This matter will have to be con

sidered more minutely.

FATE OF THE DIVISIBLE HUMAN SOUL.

As to the souls which have left the sense-world, so

long as they remain in the intelligible world, they are

above the guardian condition, and the fatality of generation. Souls bring with them thither that part of their

nature which is desirous of begetting, and which mayreasonably be regarded as the essence which is divisible

in the body, and which multiplies by dividing alongwith the bodies.

Moreover,if a soul divide

herself,it is not in respect to extension; because she is entirelyin all the bodies. On the other hand, the Soul is one;and from a single animal are ceaselessly born manyyoung. This generative element splits up like the

vegetative nature in plants; for this nature is divisible

in the bodies. When this divisible essence dwells in

the same body, it vivifies the body, just as the vegeta

tive power does for plants. When it retires, it has

already communicated life, as is seen in cut trees, or

in corpses where putrefation has caused the birth of

several animals from a single one. Besides, the vegetative power of the human soul is assisted by the vegetative power that is derived from the universal (Soul),and which here below is the same (as on high).




FATE CONSISTS IN THE UNPREDICTABLE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ALTER THE LIFE-CURRENTS.

If the soul return here below, she possesses, accord

ing to the life which she is to lead, either the same

guardian, or another. With her guardian she enters

into this world as if in a skiff. Then she is subjected to

the power (by Plato) called the Spindle of Necessity;11

and, embarkingin this

world,she takes the

placeas

signed to her by fortune. Then she is caught by the

circular movement of the heavens, whose action, as if

it were the wind, agitates the skiff in which the soul is

seated; or rather, is borne along. Thence are born

varied spectacles, transformations and divers incidents

for the soul which is embarked in this skiff; whether

because of the agitation of the sea which bears it, or

because of the conduct of the passenger who is sailing

in the bark, and who preserves her freedom of action

therein. Indeed, not every soul placed in the same

circumstances makes the same movements, wills the

same volitions, or performs the same actions. For

different beings, therefore, the differences arise from

circumstances either similar or different, or even the

same events

mayoccur to them under different circum

stances. It is this (uncertainty) that constitutes

Providence.

1 In his Phaedrus, C246. ? piat0) Rep. x. p. 617-620.2Plato, Phaedo, C. i. 242. 8 jn the Timaeus. 9 C90.

3Plato, Tim. C77. * piato ,

10 Phaedo, p. 107, c. i. p. 300.

Rep. x. p. 291. 5 piato, Tim. nRep. x. 616, p. 234.

91. 6

The textis

very difficult.



i.9]OF SUICIDE 243

FIRST ENNEAD, BOOK NINE.

Of Suicide.

EVIL EFFECTS OF SUICIDE ON THE SOUL HERSELF.

1. (As says pseudo-Zoroaster, in his Magic

Oracles), The soul should not be expelled from the

body by violence, lest she go out (dragging along with

her something foreign,"that is, corporeal). In this

case, she will be burdened with this foreign element

whithersoever she may emigrate. By "emigrating,"I

mean passing into the Beyond. On the contrary, one

should wait until the entire body naturally detaches

itself from the soul;in which case she no longer needs

to pass into any other residence, being completely un

burdened of the body.

HOW TO DETACH THE SOUL FROM THE BODYNATURALLY.

How will the body naturally detach itself from the

soul? By the complete rupture of the bonds which

keep the soul attached to the body, by the body s

impotence to fetter the soul, on account of the com

pletedestruction of the

harmonywhich

conferredthis

power on it.

VOLUNTARY SOUL.DETACHMENT IS FORBIDDEN.

One may not voluntarily disengage oneself from the

fetters of the body. When violence is employed, it is

not the body which disengages itself from the soul,




it is the soul which makes an effort to snatch herselffrom the body, and that by an action which accom

plishes itself not in the state of impassibility (whichsuits a sage), but as the result of grief, or suffering, or

of anger. Now such an action is forbidden, or un

worthy.

SUICIDE UNAVAILABLE EVEN TO AVOID INSANITY.

May one not forestall delirium or insanity, if one

become aware of their approach? To begin with,

insanity does not happen to a sage, and if it does, this

accident should be considered one of those inevitable

things which depend from fatality, and in which case

one should direct one s path less according to his in

trinsic quality than according to circumstances; for

perhaps the poison one might select to eject the soulfrom the body might do nothing but injure the soul.

SUICIDE IS UNADVISABLE, FOR TWO REASONS.

If there be an appointed time for the life of each

of us, it is not well to forestall the decree of Prov

idence, unless, as we have said,1 under absolute com

pulsion.Last, if rank obtained above depend on the state

obtaining at the time of exit from the body, no manshould separate himself from it so long as he mightstill achieve progress.

2

i In i. 2.8, 16.2 See ii. 9.18.



ii.6]OF ESSENCE AND BEING 245

SECOND ENNEAD, BOOK SIX.

Of Essence and Being.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN ESSENCE AND BEING.

1. Is "essence" something different from"being"?

Does essence indicate an abstraction of the other (four

categories), and is being, on the contrary, essence with

the other (four categories), motion and rest, identityand difference? Are these the elements of being? Yes:

"being"is the totality of these things, of which one is

essence, the other is motion, and so forth. Motion,

therefore, is accidental essence. Is it also accidental

"being?

" Or is it being completely? Motion is being,

because all intelligible things are beings. But why is

not each of the sense-things a being? The reason is,

that on high all things form only a single group of

totality, while here below they are distinct one from

another because they are images that have been dis

tinguished. Likewise, in a seminal (reason), all things

are together, and each of them is all the others; the

hand is not distinct from the head; while, on the con

trary, in a body all the organs are separate, because

are images instead of being genuine beings.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMPLEMENTS OF BEING,

AND QUALITIES.

We may now say that, in the intelligible world, qual

ities are the characteristic differences in being or es

sence. These differences effect distinction between the




beings; in short, they cause them to be beings. This

definition seems reasonable. But it does not suit the

qualities below (in the sense-world) ;some are differ

ences of being, as biped, or quadruped (as thought

Aristotle) j

1others are not differences, and on that very

account are called qualities. Still, the same thing mayappear a difference when it is a complement of the

being, and again it may not seem a difference when it

is not a complement of the being, but an accident: as,

for instance, whiteness is a complement of being in a

swan, or in white lead;but in a human being like you,

it is only an accident (as thought Aristotle).2 So long

as the whiteness is in the ("seminal) reason," it is a

complement of being, and not a quality; if it be on the

surface of a being, it is a quality.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN ESSENTIAL AND MODALQUALITIES.

Two kinds of qualities must be distinguished; the

essential quality, which is a peculiarity of its being,

and the mere quality, which affects the being s classi

fication. The mere quality introduces no change in

the essence, and causes none of its characteristics todisappear; but, when the being exists already, and is

complete, this quality gives it a certain exterior dis

position; and, whether in the case of a soul or body,adds something to it. Thus visible whiteness, which is

of the very being of white lead, is not of the being of

the swan, because a swan may be of some color other

than white. Whiteness then completes the being of

white lead, just as heat completes the being of fire.

If igneousness is said to be the being of fire, white

ness is also the being of white lead. Nevertheless,

the igneousness of the visible fire is heat, which con

stitutes the complement of its being; and whiteness

plays the same part with respect to white lead. There

fore (differing according to the difference of various



ii.6] OF ESSENCE AND BEING 247

beings) the same things will be complements of being,

and will not be qualities, or they will not be complements of being, and will be qualities; but it would not

be reasonable to assert that these qualities are different

according to whether or not they are complements of

being, since their nature is the same.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHATNESS AND AFFECTIONS OF BEING.

We must acknowledge that the reasons which pro

duce these things (as heat, and whiteness) are beings,

if taken in their totality; but on considering their pro

duction, we see that what constitutes a whatness or

quiddity (the Aristotelian "what it were tobe")

in the

intelligible world, becomes a quality in the sense-

world. Consequently, we always err on the subject of

the quiddity, when we try to determine it, mistakingthe simple quality for it (as thought Plato),

3for, when

we perceive a quality, the fire is not what we call fire,

but a being. As to the things which arrest our gaze,

we should distinguish them from the quiddity, and

define them by the qualities of sense (objects) ;for they

do not constitute the being, but the affections of being.

ACTUALIZED BEING LESS PERFECT THAN ESSENCE.

We are thus led to ask how a being can be com

posed of non-beings? It has already been pointedout that the things subject to generation could not be

identical with the principles from which they proceed.Let us now add that they could not be beings. But

still, how can one say that the intelligible being is con

stituted by a non-being? The reason is that in the

intelligible world since being forms a purer and morerefined essence, being really is somehow constituted

by the differences of essence; or rather, we feel it

ought to be called being from considering it togetherwith its energies (or, actualizations). This being seems




to be aperfecting

of essence;but

perhaps beingis less

perfect when it is thus considered together with its

actualizations; for, being less simple, it veers awayfrom essence.

SUCHNESS IS LATER THAN BEING AND QUIDDITY.

2. Let us now consider what quality in general is;

for when we shall know this, our doubts will cease.

First, must it be admitted that one and the same thing

is now a quality, and then a complement of being?Can one say that quality is the complement of being,

or rather of such a being ? The suchness of being im

plies a previously existing being and quiddity.

BEING CANNOT PRECEDE SUCH BEING.

Taking the illustration of fire, is it "mere being"

before it is "suchbeing?"

In this case, it would be

a body. Consequently, the body will be a being; fire

will be a hot body. Body and heat combined will not

constitute being; but heat will exist in the body as in

you exists the property of having a stub nose (as said

Aristotle).4

Consequently, if we abstract heat, shine

and lightness, which seem to be qualities, andalso

impenetrability, nothing will remain but tridimensional

extension, and matter will be"being."

But this hy

pothesis does not seem likely; it is rather form which

will be"being."

FORM IS NOT A QUALITY; BUT A REASON.

Is form aquality?

No: form is a reason. Nowwhat is constituted by (material) substance, and rea

son? (In the warm body) it is neither what burns,

nor what is visible; it is quality. If, however, it be said

that combustion is an act emanating from reason,

that being hot and white are actualities, we could not

find anything to explain quality.



ii.6] OF ESSENCE AND BEING 249

QUALITIES ARE ACTS OF BEING, PROCEEDING FROMREASONS AND ESSENTIAL POTENTIALITIES.

What we call a complement of being should not be

termed a quality, because they are actualizations of

being, actualizations which proceed fromthe reasons

and the essential potentialities. Qualities are therefore

something outside of being; something which does not

at times seem tobe, and

at other timesdoes

notseemnot to be qualities; something which adds to being

something that is not necessary; for example, virtues

and vices, ugliness and beauty, health, and individual

resemblance. Though triangle, and tetragon, each

considered by itself, are not qualities; yet being "trans

formed into triangular appearance" is a quality; it is

not therefore triangularity, but triangular formation,

which is a quality. The same could be said of the arts

and professions. Consequently, quality is a dispo

sition, either adventitious or original, in already exist

ing beings. Without it, however, being would exist

just as much. It might be said that quality is either

mutable or immutable; for it forms two kinds, accord

ing to whether it be permanent or changeable.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTELLIGIBLE ANDSENSE-QUALITY.

3. The whiteness that I see in you is not a quality,

but an actualization of the potentiality of whitening.In the intelligible world all the things that we call qualities are actualizations. They are called qualities be

cause they are properties, because they differentiatethe beings from each other, because in respect to themselves they bear a particular character. But since

quality in the sense-world is also an actualization, in

what does it differ from the intelligible quality? The

sense-quality does not show the essential quality of

every being, nor the difference or character of sub-




stances, but simply the thing that we properly call

quality, and which is an actualization in the intelligible

world. When the property of something is to be a

being, this thing is not a quality. But when reason

separates beings from their properties, when it removes

nothing from them, when it limits itself to conceivingand begetting different from these beings, it begets

quality,

which it conceives of as thesuperficial part

of

being. In this case, nothing hinders the heat of the fire,

so far as it is natural to it, from constituting a form, an

actualization, and not a quality of the fire; it is a

quality when it exists in a substance where it no longerconstitutes the form of being, but only a trace, an

adumbration, an image of being, because it finds itself

separated from the being whose actualization it is.

QUALITIES ARE ACCIDENTAL SHAPES OF BEING.

Qualities, therefore, are everything that, instead of

being actualizations and forms of beings, are only its

accidents, and only reveal its shapes. We will there

fore call qualities the habituations and the dispositions

which are not essential to substances. The archetypes

(or models) of qualities are the actualizations of the

beings, which are the principles of these qualities. It

is impossible for the same thing at one time to be, and

at another not to be a quality. What can be separated

from being is quality; what remains united to being is

being, form, and actualization. In fact, nothing can

be the same in itself, and in some other condition where

it has ceased to be form and an actualization. What,instead of being the form of a being, is always its

accident, is purely and exclusively a quality.

1 As thought Aristotle, Met. Letter 7, 343. 4 As said Aris-

v. 14. 2 As thought Aristotle, totle, Met. vii. 5.

Met. v. 30. 3 As thought Plato,



v.7] IDEAS OF INDIVIDUALS 25l

FIFTH ENNEAD, BOOK SEVEN.

Do Ideas cf Individuals Exist?

TWO POSSIBLE HYPOTHESES OF IDEAS OFINDIVIDUALS.

1. Do ideas of individuals (as well as of classes

of individuals), exist? This means that ifI,

in com

pany with some other man, were to trace ourselves

back to the intelligible world, we would there find

separate individual principles corresponding to each of

us. (This might imply either of two theories.) Either,

if the individual named Socrates be eternal, and if the

soul of Socrates be Socrates himself, then the soul of

each individual is contained in the intelligible world.

Orif, on the contrary, the individual named Socrates

be not eternal, if the same soul can belong successivelyto several individuals, such as Socrates or Pythagoras,

then (as Alcinoous, e. g., and other Platonists insist),

each individual does not have his idea in the intelligible

world.

THE FIRST (NON-PLATONIC) HYPOTHESIS ALONERIGHT.

If the particular soul of each man contains(sem

inal)

reasons" of all thethings

shedoes,

then each

individual corresponds to his idea in the intelligible

world, for we admit that each soul contains as many("seminal) reasons" as the entire world. In this case,

the soul would contain not only the("seminal) rea

sons" of men but also those of all animals, the numberof these reasons will be infinite, unless (as the Stoics




teach) the world does not re-commence the identical

series of existences in fixed periods; for the only meansof limiting the infinity of reasons, is that the same

things should reproduce themselves.

DIFFERENCE OF THINGS DEPEND ON THEIRSEMINAL REASONS.

But, if produced things may be more numerous than

their

specimens,what would be the

necessity

for the

"reasons" and specimens of all individuals begotten

during some one period? It would seem that the

(idea of) the "man himself" to explain the existence

of all men, and that the souls of a finite number of

them could successively animate men of an infinite

number. (To this contention we demur: for) it is

impossible for different things to have an identical

("seminal) reason." The (idea of) the man himselfwould not, as model, suffice (to account) for menwho differ from each other not only by matter, but

also by specific differences. They cannot be com

pared to the images of Socrates which reproduce their

model. Only the difference of the ("seminal)rea

sons" could give rise to individual differences. (AsPlato said),

1 the entire period contains all the ("sem

inal) reasons." When it recommences, the same

things rearise through the same "reasons." We need

not fear that, as a consequence, there would be an

infinite (number or variety) of them in the intelligible

world; for the multitude (of the seminal reasons) con

stitutes an indivisible principle from which each issues

forth whenever active.

SEX ALONE WOULD NOT ACCOUNT FOR THIS

DIVERSITY.

2. (First objection) : The manner in which the

"seminal) reasons" of the male and female unite, in

e act of generation, suffices to account for the divers-



v.7] IDEAS OF INDIVIDUALS 253

ity of individuals,without

implyingthat each of them

possesses its own ("seminal) reason." The gener-

ating principle, the male, for e$^mple, will not prop-

agate according to different ("seminal) reasons,"

since it possesses all of them, but only according to its

own, or those of its father. Since it possesses all of

the ("seminal) reasons," nothing would hinder it from

begetting according to different "reasons," only, there

are always some which are more disposed to act thanare others.

EXPLANATION OF THE DIVERSITY FROM SAMEPARENTS.

(Second objection) : Please explain how differing

individuals are born from the same parents. This

diversity,if it

be anything more than merely apparent,depends on the manner in which the two generating

principles concur in the act of generation; at one time

the male predominates, at other times, the female;

again, they may both act equally. In either case, the

("seminal) reason" is given in its entirety, and domin

ates the matter furnished by either of the generating

principles.

VARIETY MAY DEPEND ON THE LATENCY OF PARTOF SEMINAL REASONS.

(Third objection) : What then is the cause of the

difference of the individuals conceived in some other

place (than the womb, as in the mouth), (as Aristotle2

and Sextus Empiricus3asked) ? Would it arise from

matter being penetrated by the ("seminal) reason" indiffering degrees? In this case, all the individuals,

except one, would be beings against nature (which, of

course, is absurd). The varieties of the individuals are

a principle of beauty; consequently, form cannot be

one of them; ugliness alone should be attributed to

the predominance of matter. In the intelligible world,




the ("seminal)reasons" are perfect, and they are not

given any less entirely for being hidden.

LEIBNITZ S DOCTRINE OF THE INDISCERNIBLES.

(Fourth objection) : Granting that the ("seminal)

reasons" of the individuals are different, why should

there be as many as there are individuals which achieve

existence in any one period? It is possible that iden

tical "reasons" might produce individuals differing inexternal appearance; and we have even granted that

this may occur when the("seminal) reasons" are

given entirely. It is asked, is this possible whenthe same "reasons" are developed? We teach that

absolutely similar things might be reproduced in dif

ferent periods; but, within the same period, there is

nothing absolutely identical.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT IDEAS FOR TWINS,

BRETHREN, OR WORKS OF ART.

3. (Fifth objection) : But how could ("seminal)

reasons" be different in the conception of twins, and

in the act of generation in the case of animals who

procreate multiple offspring? Here it would seem that

when the individuals are similar, there could be but onesingle "reason." No so; for in that case there would

not be so many "reasons" as there are individuals;

and, on the contrary, it will have to be granted that

there are as many as there are individuals that differ

by specific differences, and not by a mere lack of form.

Nothing therefore hinders us from admitting that there

are different "reasons," even for animal offspring

which show no difference, if there were such. An artist

who produces similar works cannot produce this resem

blance without introducing in it some difference which

depends on reasoning; so that every work he producesdiffers from the others, because he adds some difference

to the similarity. In nature, where the difference does



v.7] IDEAS OF INDIVIDUALS 255

not derive from reasoning, but only from differing

("seminal) reasons" the (individual) difference will

have to be added to the specific form, even though we

may not be able to discern it. The ("seminal)reason"

would be different if generation admitted chance as to

quantity (the number of offspring begotten). But

if the number of things to be born is determinate, the

quantity will be limited by the evolution and develop

ment of all the"reasons," so that, when the series of

all things will be finished, another period may recom

mence. The quantity suitable to the world, and the

number of beings who are to exist therein, are things

regulated and contained in the principle which contains

all the "reasons" (that is, the universal Soul), from

the very beginning.

i Phaedros C1.217. 2 de Gen. An. 4.2.3 Adv. Math. 5.102 p.

355.




FIRST ENNEAD, BOOK TWO.

Concerning Virtue.

VIRTUE THE ROAD TO ESCAPE EVILS.

1. Man must flee from (this world) here below

(for two reasons) : because it is the nature of the soul

to flee from evil, and because inevitable evil prevails

and dominates this world here below. What is this

flight (and how can we accomplish it)? (Plato),1

tells us it consists in"being

assimilated to divinity."

This then can be accomplished by judiciouslyconform

ing to justice, and holiness; in short, by virtue.

CAN THESE VIRTUES BE ASCRIBED TO THEDIVINITY?

If then it be by virtue that we are assimilated (to

divinity), does this divinity to whom we are trying to

achieve assimilation, Himself possess virtue? Besides,

what divinity is this? Surely it must be He who mustmost seem to possess virtue, the world-Soul, together

with the principle predominating in her, whose wisdom

is most admirable (supreme Intelligence) for it is

quite reasonable that we should be assimilated to Him.

Nevertheless, one might, unreflectingly, questionwhether all virtues might suit this divinity; whether,

forinstance,

moderation in hisdesires,

orcouragecould be predicated of Him; for, as to courage, nothing

can really harm Him, and He therefore has nothingto fear; and as to moderation, no pleasant object whose

presence would excite His desires, or whose absence

would in Him awaken regrets, could possibly exist.

But inasmuch as the divinity, just as we ourselves,



i.2] CONCERNING VIRTUE 257

aspires to intelligible things, He is evidently the sourceof our gracious sanity and virtues. So we are forced

to ask ourselves, "Does the divinity possess these

virtues?"

HOMELY VIRTUES ASSIMILATE US TO DIVINITYONLY PARTIALLY.

Mt would not be proper to attribute to Him the

homely (or, civil) virtues, such as prudence, which"relates to the rational part of our nature"; courage,

which "relates to our irasciblepart"; temperance,

which consists of the harmonious consonance of our

desires and our reasonplast, of justice, which "con

sists in the accomplishment by all these faculties

of the function proper to each of them," "whether

to commnd, or to obey," (as said Plato

2

).But

if we cannot become assimilated to the divinity by

these homely virtues, that process must demand

similarly named virtues of a superior order. However,these homely virtues would not be entirely useless to

achieve that result, for one cannot say that while prac

tising them one does not at all resemble the divinity as

they who practise them are reputed to be godlike.

These lower virtues do therefore yield some resemblance to the divinity, but complete assimilation can

result only from virtues of a higher order.

THE DIVINE NEED NOT POSSESS THE LOWER VIRTUES BY WHICH WE ARE ASSIMILATED TO HIM.

Virtues, even if they be not homely, are therefore

ultimately ascribed (to the divinity). Grantingthat the divinity does not possess the homely vir

tues, we may still become assimilated to Him by other

virtues for with virtues of another order the case mightdiffer. Therefore, without assimilating ourselves

to the divinity by homely virtues we might neverthe

less by means of virtues which still are ours, becomeassimilated to the Being which does not possess virtue.




This may be explained by an illustration. When a

body is warmed by the presence of fire, the fire itself

need not be heated by the presence of another fire. It

might be argued that there was heat in the fire, but

a heat that is innate. Reasoning by analogy, the

virtue, which in the soul is only adventitious, is innate

in Him from whom the soul derives it by imitation;

(in other words, the cause need not necessarily possess

the same qualities as the effect).

Our argument from heat might however be ques

tioned, inasmuch as the divinity really does possess

virtue, though it be of a higher nature. This observa-

vation would be correct, if the virtue in which the soul

participates were identical with the principle from

which she derives it. But there is a complete oppo

sition ; for when we see a house, the sense-house is notidentical with the intelligible House, though possessing

resemblance thereto. Indeed, the sense-house partici

pates in order and proportion, though neither order,

proportion, nor symmetry could be attributed to the

idea of the House. Likewise, we derived from the

divinity order, proportion and harmony, which, here

below, are conditions of virtue, without thereby imply

ing that the divinity Himself need possess order, pro

portion, or harmony. Similarly, it is not necessary that

He possess virtue, although we become assimilated to

Him thereby.

Such is our demonstration that human assimilation

to the divine Intelligence by virtue does not (neces

sarily imply) (in the divine Intelligence itself) pos

session of virtue. Mere logical demonstration thereofis not, however, sufficient; we must also convince.

THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF RESEMBLANCE.

2. Let us first examine the virtues by which we are

assimilated to the divinity, and let us study the identity

between our soul-image which constitutes virtue, and



12] CONCERNING VIRTUE 259

supreme Intelligence s principle which, without being

virtue, is its archetype. There are two kinds of resemblance : the first entails such identity of nature as

exists when both similar things proceed from a same

principle; the second is that of one thing to another

which precedes it, as its principle. In the latter case,

there is no reciprocity, and the principle does not re

semble that which is inferior to it; or rather, the re

semblance must be conceived entirely differently. It

does not necessitate that the similar objects be of the

same kind; it rather implies that they are of different

kinds, inasmuch as they resemble each other differently.

HOW HOMELY VIRTUES MAY ASSIMILATE MAN TOTHE SUPREME.

(It is difficult to define) what is virtue, in general

or in particular. To clear up the matter, let us consider one particular kind of virtue: then it will be easyto determine the common essence underlying them all.

The above-mentioned homely virtues really render

our souls gracious, and improve them, regulating and

moderating our appetities, tempering our passions, de

livering us from false opinions, limiting us within just

bounds,and

theythemselves must be determined

bysome kind of measure. This measure given to our

souls resembles the form given to matter, and the pro

portion of intelligible things; it is as it were a trace of

what is most perfect above. What is unmeasured,

being no more than formless matter, cannot in any

way resemble divinity. The greater the participationin form, the greater the assimilation to the formless;

and the closer we get to form, the greater the partici

pation therein. Thus our soul, whose nature is nearer

to divinity and more kindred to it than the body is,

thereby participates the more in the divine, and in

creases that resemblance enough to make it seem that

the divinity is all that she herself is. Thus arises the




deception, which represents her as the divine divinity,

as if her quality constituted that of the divinity. Thusare men of homely virtues assimilated to the divinity.

PLATO DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN THE HOMELYAND THE HIGHER VIRTUES.

3. We will now, following (Plato),3speak of an

other kind of assimilation as the privilege of a highervirtue.

Wewill thus better understand the nature of

homely virtues, and the higher virtues, and the differ

ence between them. Plato is evidently distinguishing

two kinds of virtues when he says that assimilation to

the divinity consists in fleeing from (the world) here

below; when he adds the qualification "homely"to

the virtues relating to social life; and when in another

place he asserts4that all virtues are processes of puri

fication; and it is not to the homely virtues that heattributes the power of assimilating us to the divinity.

HOW VIRTUES PURIFY.

How then do the virtues purify? How does this

process of purification bring us as near as possible to

the divinity? (.So long as the soul is mingled with the

body, sharing its passions and opinions, she is evil.

She becomes better, that is, she acquires virtues, only

when, instead of agreeing with the body, she thinks

by herself (this is true thought, and constitutes pru

dence) ;when she ceases to share its passions (in other

words, temperance) ;when she no longer fears separa

tion from the body (a state called courage) ;and last,

when reason and intelligence can enforce their com

mand (or justice).")

SELF-CONTROL IS ASSIMILATION TO THE DIVINITY.

We may therefore unhesitatingly state that the re

semblance to the divinity lies in such regulation, in re-




maining impassible while thinking intelligible things;

for what is pure is divine and the nature of the divine

action is such that whatever imitates it thereby possesses wisdom. But it is not the divinity that possesses such a disposition, for dispositions are the pro

perty of souls only. Besides, the soul does not think

intelligible objects in the same manner as the divinity;

what is contained in the divinity is contained within us

in a mannerentirely different,

or evenperhaps

is not

at all contained. For instance, the divinity s thoughtis not at all identical with ours; the divinity s thought is

a primary principle from which our thought is derived

and differs. As the vocal word is only the image of

the interior reason 5 of the soul, so also is the word

of the soul only the image of the Word of a superior

principle; and as the exterior word, when compared to

the interior reason of the soul, seems discrete, or

divided, so the reason of the soul, which is no morethan the interpreter of the intelligible word, is discrete,

in comparison with the latter. Thus does virtue be

long to the soul without belonging either to absolute

Intelligence, nor to the Principle superior to Intelli

gence.

PURIFICATION PRODUCES CONVERSION; ANDVIRTUE MAKES USE OF THIS.

4. Purification may be either identical with the

above-defined virtue, or virtue may be the result of

purification. In this case, does virtue consist of the

actual process of purification, or in the already purifiedcondition ? This is our problem here.

The process of purification is inferior to the already

purified condition; for purity is the soul s destined goal.

(Negative) purity is mere separation from extraneous

things; it is not yet (positive) possession of its prize.If the soul had possessed goodness before losing her




purity, mere purification would be sufficient; and even

in this case the residuum of the purification would bethe goodness, and not the purification. What is the

residuum? Not goodness; otherwise, the soul would

not have fallen into evil. The soul therefore possessesthe form of goodness, without however being able to

remain solidly attached thereto, because her nature

permits her to turn either to the good, or the evil. The

good of the soul is to remain united to her sister intel

ligence; her evil, is to abandon herself to the contrary

things. After purifying the soul, therefore, she must

be united to the divinity; but this implies turning her

towards Him. Now this conversion does not begin to

occur after the purification, but is its very result. Thevirtue of the soul, therefore, does not consist in her

conversion, but in that which she thereby obtains. This

is the intuition of her intelligible object; its image produced and realized within herself; an image similar to

that in the eye, an image which represents the thingsseen. It is not necessary to conclude that the soul did

not possess this image, nor had any reminiscence

thereof; she no doubt possessed it, but inactively,

latently, obscurely. To clarify it, to discover her pos

sessions, the soul needs to approach the source of all

clearness. As, however, the soul possesses only the

images of the intelligibles, without possessing the in-

telligibles themselves, she will be compelled to com

pare with them her own image of them. Easily does

the soul contemplate the intelligibles, because the in

telligence is not foreign to her; when the soul wishes

to enter in relations with them, all the soul needs to

dois

to turn her glance towards them. Otherwise, theintelligence, though present in the soul, will remain

foreign to her. This explains how all our acquisitions

of knowledge are foreign to us (as if non-existent),while we fail to recall them.




THE LIMIT OF PURIFICATION IS THAT OF THESOUL S SELF-CONTROL.

5. The limit of purification decides to which (of

the three hypostases of) divinity the soul may hopeto assimilate and identify herself; therefore we shall

have to consider that limit. To decide that would be

to examine the limit of the soul s ability to repress

anger, appetites, and passions of all kinds, to triumphover pain and similar feelings in short, to separateher from the body. This occurs when, recollecting

herself from the various localities over which she had,

as it were, spread herself, she retires within herself;

when she estranges herself entirely from the passions,

when she allows the body only such pleasures as are

necessary or suitable to cure her pains, to recuperate

from its fatigues, and in avoiding its becoming im

portunate; when she becomes insensible to sufferings;

or, if that be beyond her power, in supporting them

patiently, and in diminishing them by refusing to share

them; when she appeases anger as far as possible, even

suppressing it entirely, if possible; or at least, if that be

impossible, not participating therein; abandoning to

the animal nature all unthinking impulses, and even soreducing to a minimum all reflex movements; whenshe is absolutely inaccessible to fear, having nothingleft to risk; and when she represses all sudden move

ments, except nature s warning of dangers. Evidently,

the purified soul will have to desire nothing shameful.

In eating and drinking, she will seek only the satis

faction of a need, while remaining foreign to it;nor

will she seek the pleasures of love; or, if she does, she

will not go beyond the exactions of nature, resisting

every unconsidered tendency, or even in remainingwithin the involuntary flights of fancy.




THE INFLUENCE OF REASON IS

SUGGESTIVE.In short, the soul will be pure from all these pas

sions, and will even desire to purify our being s ir

rational part so as to preserve it from emotions, or

at least to moderate their number and intensity, and

to appease them promptly by her presence. So woulda man, in the neighborhood of some sage, profit

thereby, either by growing similar to him, or in re

fraining from doing anything of which the sage might

disapprove. This (suggestive) influence of reason

will exert itself without any struggle; its mere presencewill suffice. The inferior principle will respect it to

the point of growing resentful against itself, and re

proaching itself for its weakness, if it feel any agita

tion which might disturb its master s repose.

THE GOAL OF PURIFICATION IS SECOND DIVINITY,

INTELLIGENCE.

6. A man who has achieved such a state no longer

commits such faults; for he has become corrected.

But his desired goal is not to cease failing, but to

be divine. In case he still allows within himself the

occurrence of some of the above-mentioned unreflect

ing impulses, he will be simultaneously divinity and

guafdian, a double being; or rather, he will contain a

principle of another nature (Intelligence), whose virtue

will likewise differ from his. If, however, he be not

troubled by any of those motions, he will be wholly

divine; he will be one of those divinities "who (as

Plato said)6 form the attending escort of the First."

It is

a divinity of such a nature that has come downfrom above to dwell in us. To become again what one

was originally, is to live in this superior world. He

who has achieved that height dwells with pure Intel

ligence, and assimilates himself thereto as far as possible. Consequently, he feels none of those emotions,

nor does he any more commit any actions, which



1.2] CONCERNING VIRTUE 265

would be disapproved of by the superior principle whohenceforth is his only master,

THE HIGHER VIRTUES MERGE INTO WISDOM.

For such a being the separate virtues merge. For

him, wisdom consists in contemplating the (essences)

possessed by Intelligence, and with which Intelligence

is in contact. There are two kinds of wisdom, one

being proper to intelligence, the other to the soul;

onlyin the latter may we speak of virtue. In the In

telligence exists only the energy (of thought), and its

essence. The image of this essence, seen here below

in a being of another nature, is the virtue which emanates from it. In Intelligence, indeed, resides neither

absolute justice, nor any of those genuinely so-called

virtues; nothing is left but their type. Its derivativein the soul is virtue; for virtue is the attribute of an

individual being. On the contrary, the intelligible be

longs to itself only, and is the attribute of no particular

being.

INCARNATE JUSTICE IS INDIVIDUAL; IF ABSOLUTE,IT IS INDIVISIBLE.

Must justice ever imply multiplicity if it consist in

fulfilling its proper function? Surely, as long as it

inheres in a principle with several parts (such as a

human soul, in which several functions may be dis

tinguished) ;but its essence lies in the accomplishment

of the function proper to every being, even when in

hering in a unitary principle (such as Intelligence).

Absolute and veritable Justice consists in the self-directed action of an unitary Principle, in which no

parts can be distinguished.

THE HIGHER FORMS. OF THE VIRTUES.

Iff this higher realm, justice consists in directing the

action of the soul towards intelligence; temperance is




the intimate conversion of the soul towards intelli

gence; courage is the (suggestive fascination) or im

passibility, by which the soul becomes similar to that

which it contemplates; since it is natural for intelli

gence to be impassible. Now the soul derives this

impassibility from the virtue which hinders her from

sharing the passions of the lower principle with which

she is associated.

EVEN THE LOWER VIRTUES ARE MUTUALLYRELATED.

7. Within the soul the virtues have the same inter

connection obtaining within Intelligence between the

types superior to virtue. For Intelligence, it is thoughtthat constitutes wisdom and prudence; conversion

towards oneself is temperance; the fulfillment of one s

proper function is justice, and the intelligence s perseverance in remaining within itself, in maintainingitself pure and separated from matter, is analogous to

courage. To contemplate intelligence will therefore,

for the soul, constitute wisdom and prudence, which

then become virtues, and no longer remain mere in

tellectual

types.

For the soul is not identical with the

essences she thinks, as is intelligence. Similarly, the

other soul-virtues will correspond to the superior types.

It is not otherwise with purification, for since everyvirtue is a purification, virtue exacts preliminary puri

fication; otherwise, it would not be perfect.

THE HIGHER VIRTUES IMPLY THE LOWER; BUT

NOT CONVERSELY.The possessor of the higher virtues necessarily pos

sesses the potentiality for the inferior virtues; but the

possessor of the lower does not, conversely, possessthe higher. Such are the characteristics of the virtuous

man.




PRUDENCE TO DECIDE WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE

TO POSSESS VIRTUES UNSYMMETRICALLY?

(Many interesting questions remain). Is it possible

for a man to possess the higher or lower virtues in ac

complished reality, or otherwise (merely theoreti

cally) ? To decide that, we would have individually to

examine each, as, for example, prudence. How could

such a virtue exist merely potentially, borrowing its

principlesfrom elsewhere? What would happen if

one virtue advanced naturally to a certain degree, and

another virtue to another? What would you think

of a temperance which would moderate certain (im

pulses), while entirely suppressing others? Similar

questions might be raised about other virtues, and the

arbiter of the degree to which the virtues have attained

would have to be prudence.

THE HOMELY VIRTUES MUST BE SUPPLEMENTEDBY DIVINE DISCONTENT.

No doubt, under certain circumstances, the virtuous

man, in his actions, will make use of some of the

lower, or homely virtues; but even so he will supplement them by standards or ideas derived from highervirtues. For instance, he will not be satisfied with a

temperance which would consist in mere moderation,but he will gradually seek to separate himself moreand more from matter. Again, he will supplement the

life of a respectable man, exacted by common-sense

homely virtues; he will be continually aspiringhigher, to the life of the divinities; for our effort at

assimilation should be directed not at mere respect

ability, but to the gods themselves. To seek no morethan to become assimilated to respectable individuals

would be like trying to make an image by limiting one

self to copying another image, itself modelled after




another image (but not copying the original). Theassimilation here recommended results from taking as

model a superior being.

1Theataetus, C2,132.

2Rep. the word

"logos,"which means

iv. E3,434.3Theataetus, 176. both reason and word. 6

Plato,4Plato, Phaedo, 69. 5 pun on Phaedrus, 246.



i.3] MEANS OF RAISING THE SOUL 269

FIRST ENNEAD, BOOK? THREE.

Of Dialectic, or the Means of Raising the Soul to the

Intelligible World.

SEARCH FOR A DEMONSTRATION OF DIVINITY SUCHTHAT THE DEMONSTRATION ITSELF WILL DEIFY.

1. What method, art or study will lead us to the

goal we are to attain, namely, the Good, the first

Principle, the Divinity, 1 by a demonstration which itself

can serve to raise the soul to the superior world ?

METHODS DIFFER ACCORDING TO INDIVIDUALS;BUT THERE ARE CHIEFLY TWO.

He who is to be promoted to that world should know

everything, or at least, as says (Plato),2 he should be

as learned as possible. In his first generation he shouldhave descended here below to form a philosopher, a

musician, a lover. That is the kind of men whose

nature makes them most suitable to be raised to the

intelligible world. But how are we going to raise

them? Does a single method suffice for all? Does

not each of them need a special method? Doubtless.

There are two methods to follow: the one for thosewho rise to the intelligible world from here below,

and the other for those who have already reached

there. We shall start by the first of these two

methods; then comes that of the men who have

already achieved access to the intelligible world, and

who have, so to speak, already taken root there. Even




these must ceaselessly progresstill

they have reachedthe summit; for one must stop only when one has

reached the supreme term.

RETURN OF THE SOUL OF THE PHILOSOPHER,MUSICIAN AND LOVER.

The latter road of progress must here be left aside

(to be taken

uplater),

3 to discuss here fully the first,

explaining the operation of the return of the soul to

the intelligible world. Three kinds of men offer them

selves to our examination: the philosopher, the music

ian, and the lover. These three must clearly be dis

tinguished, beginning by determining the nature and

character of the musician.

HOW THE MUSICIAN RISES TO THE INTELLIGIBLEWORLD.

The musician allows himself to be easily moved by

beauty, and admires it greatly; but he is not able byhimself to achieve the intuition of the beautiful. He

needs the stimulation of external impressions. Just

as some timorous being is awakened by the least noise,

the musician is sensitive to the beauty of the voice and

of harmonies. He avoids all that seems contrary to

the laws of harmony and of unity, and enjoys rhythmand melodies in instrumental and vocal music. After

these purely sensual intonations, rhythm and tunes, he

will surely in them come to distinguish form from

matter, and to contemplate the beauty existing in their

proportions and relations. He will have to be taught

that what excites his admiration in these things, is their

intelligible harmony, the beauty it contains, and, in

short, beauty absolute, and not particular. He will

have to be introduced to philosophy by arguments that

will lead him to recognize truths that he ignored, thoughhe possessed them instinctively. Such arguments will

be specified elsewhere.4




HOW THE LOVER RISES TO THE INTELLIGIBLE.

2. The musician can rise to the rank of the lover,

and either remain there, or rise still higher. But the

lover has some reminiscence of the beautiful; but as

here below he is separated (from it, he is incapable of

clearly knowing what it is). Charmed with the beauti

ful objects that meet his views, he falls into an ecstasy.

He must therefore be taught not to content himself

with thus admiring a single body, but, by reason, toembrace all bodies that reveal beauty; showing him

what is identical in all, informing him that it is some

thing alien to the bodies, which comes from elsewhere,

and which exists even in a higher degree in the objects

of another nature; citing, as examples, noble occupa

tions, and beautiful laws. He will be shown that beautyis found in the arts, the sciences, the virtues, all of

which are suitable means of familiarizing the lover with

the taste of incorporeal things. He will then be madeto see that beauty is one, and he will be shown the

element which, in every object, constitutes beauty.From virtues he will be led to progress to intelligence

and essence, while from there he will have nothing else

to do but to progress towards the supreme goal.

HOW THE PHILOSOPHER RISES TO THEINTELLIGIBLE WORLD.

3. The philosopher is naturally disposed to rise to

the intelligible world. Borne on by light wings, he

rushes thither without needing to learn to disengagehimself from sense-objects, as do the preceding men.

His only uncertainty will concern the road to be fol

lowed, all he will need will be a guide. He must there

fore be shown the road; he must be helped to detach

himself entirely from sense-objects, himself already

possessing, as he does, the desire, being since a longwhile already detached therefrom by his nature. For

this purpose he will be invited to apply himself to




mathematics, so as to accustom him to think of in

corporeal things, to believe in their existence. Beingdesirous of instruction, he will learn them easily; as,

by his nature, he is already virtuous, he will need no

more than promotion to the perfection of virtue. After

mathematics, he will be taught dialectics, which will

perfect him.

WHAT DIALECTICS IS.

4. What then is this dialectics, knowledge of which

must be added to mathematics? It is a science which

makes us capable of reasoning about each thing, to say

what it is,in what it differs from the others, in what

it resembles them, where it is, whether it be one of the

beings, to determine how many veritable beings there

are, and which are the objects that contain nonentity

instead of veritable essence. This science treats also

of good and evil; of everything that is subordinated

to (being), the Good, and to its contrary; of the

nature of what is eternal, and transitory. It treats of

each matter scientifically, and not according to mere

opinion. Instead of wandering around the sense-world,

it establishes itself in the intelligible world; it concen

trates its whole attention on this

world,and after

havingsaved our soul from deceit, dialectics"pastures

our

soul in the meadow of truth,"

5(as thought Plato).

Then it makes use of the Platonic method of division

to discern ideas, to define each object, to rise to the

several kinds of essences6(as thought Plato) ; then,

by thought concatenating all that is thence derived,

dialectics continues its deductions until it has gone

through the whole domain of the intelligible. Then,

by reversing, dialectics returns to the very Principle

from which first it had started out.7

Resting there,

because it is only in the intelligible world that it can

find rest, no longer needing to busy itself with a multi

tude of objects, because it has arrived at unity, dia-




lectics considers its logic, which treats of propositionsand

arguments.This

logicis an art subordinate to

dialectics just as writing is subordinate to thought. In

logic, dialectics recognizes some principles as necessary,

and others as constituting preparatory exercises. Then,

along with everything else, subjecting these principles

to its criticism, it declares some of them useful, and

others superfluous, or merely technical.

DIALECTICS IS THE HIGHEST PART OF PHILOSOPHY.5. Whence does this science derive its proper prin

ciples? Intelligence furnishes the soul with the clear

principles she is capable of receiving. Having dis

covered and achieved these principles, dialectics putstheir consequences in order. Dialectics composes, and

divides, till it has arrived at a perfect intelligence of

things; for according to (Plato),8

dialectics is thepurest application of intelligence and wisdom. In this

case, if dialectics be the noblest exercise of our faculties,

it must exercise itself with essence and the highest ob

jects. Wisdom studies existence, as intelligence studies

that which is still beyond existence (the One, or the

Good). But is not philosophy also that which is most

eminent? Surely. But there is no confusion between

philosophy and dialectics, because dialectics is the high

est part of philosophy. It is not (as Aristotle thought)

merely an instrument for philosophy, nor (as Epicurus

thought) made up of pure speculations and abstract

rules. It studies things themselves, and its matter is

the (real) beings. It reaches them by following a

method which yields reality as well as the idea. Only

accidentally does dialectics busy itself with error andsophisms. Dialectics considers them alien to its mis

sion, and as produced by a foreign principle. Whenever anything contrary to the rule of truth is advanced,

dialectics recognizes the error by the light of the truths

it contains. Dialectics, however, does not care for




propositions, which, to it, seem only mere groupings

of letters. Nevertheless, because it knows the truth,dialectics also understands propositions, and, in general,the operations of the soul. Dialectics knows what it is

to affirm, to deny, and how to make contrary or con

tradictory assertions. Further, dialectics distinguishesdifferences from identities, grasping the truth by an

intuition that is as instantaneous as is that of the

senses; but dialectics leaves to another science, that

enjoys those details, the care of treating them with

exactness.

THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHYCROWNED BY DIALECTICS.

6. Dialectics, therefore, is only one part of philos

ophy, but the most important. Indeed, philosophy has

other branches. First, it studies nature (in physics),therein employing dialectics, as the other arts employarithmetic, though philosophy owes far more to dia

lectics. Then philosophy treats of morals, and here

again it is dialectics that ascertains the principles; ethics

limits itself to building good habits thereon, and to

propose the exercises that shall produce those goodhabits. The

(Aristotelian)rational virtues also

oweto

dialectics the principles which seem to be their char

acteristics; for they chiefly deal with material things

(because they moderate the passions). The other

virtues9

also imply the application of reason to the

passions and actions which are characteristic of each

of them. However, prudence applies reason to themin a superior manner. Prudence deals rather with the

universal, considering whether the virtues concatenate,and whether an action should be done now, or be de

ferred, or be superseded by another10 (as thought Aris

totle). Now it is dialectics, or its resultant science of

wisdom which, under a general and immaterial form,

furnishes prudence with all the principles it needs.




WITHOUT DIALECTICS LOWER KNOWLEDGE WOULDBE IMPERFECT.

Could the lower knowledge not be possessed with

out dialectics or wisdom? They would, at least, be

imperfect and mutilated. On the other hand, thoughthe dialectician, that is, the true sage, no longer need

these inferior things, he never would have becomesuch without

them; theymust

precede,and

theyin

crease with the progress made in dialectics. Virtues are

in the same case. The possessor of natural virtues

may, with the assistance of wisdom, rise to perfectvirtues. Wisdom, therefore, only follows natural

virtues. Then wisdom perfects the morals. Rather,

the already existing natural virtues increase and growperfect along with wisdom. Whichever of these two

things precedes, complements the other. Natural

virtues, however, yield only imperfect views and

morals; and the best way to perfect them, is philo

sophic knowledge of the principles from which they

depend.

1v. 1.1. 2 In his Phaedrus, 262. 7 v. 1.

8 In his Sophist.,

Et. 266. 3 in v. 1.1.

4i. 3. 4, p. 253.

*>

See i. 2.3-6.10

Mor-5, 6; i. 6. 5 In his Phaedrus, als i. 34, 35; Nicom. Eth., vi.

p. 248. 6 In his Politician, p. 8. 11




FOURTH ENNEAD, BOOK TWO.

How the Soul Mediates Between Indivisible and

Divisible Essence.

OUTLINE OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY OF IV. 7.

1. While studying the nature("being")

of the

soul, we have shown (against the Stoics) that she is

not a body; that, among incorporeal entities, she is

not a"harmony" (against the Pythagoreans) ;

wehave also shown that she is not an "entelechy"

(against Aristotle), because this term, as its very ety

mology implies, does not express a true idea, and re

veals nothing about the soul s (nature itself) ; last,

we said that the soul has an intelligible nature, and is

of divine condition; the"being"

or nature of the soul

we have also, it would seem, clearly enough set forth.

Still, we have to go further. We have formerly es

tablished a distinction between intelligible and sense

nature, assigning the soul to the intelligible world.

Granting this, that the soul forms part of the intel-

ligibe world, we must, in another manner, study whatis suitable to her nature.

EXISTENCE OF DIVISIBLE BEINGS.

To begin with, there are (beings) which are quitedivisible and naturally separable. No one part of anyone of them is identical with any other part, nor with

the whole, of which each part necessarily is smaller

than the whole. Such are sense-magnitudes, or



iv.2] HOW THE SOUL MEDIATES 277

physical masses,of which each

occupiesa

place apart,without being able to be in several places simul

taneously.

DESCRIPTION OF INDIVISIBLE ESSENCE.

On the other hand, there exists another kind of es

sence("being"),

whose nature differs from the pre

ceding (entirely divisible beings), which admits of nodivision, and is neither divided nor divisible. This has

no extension, not even in thought. It does not need to

be in any place, and is not either partially or whollycontained in any other being. If we dare say so, it

hovers simultaneously over all beings, not that it needs

to be built up on them,1 but because it is indispensable

to the existence of all. It is ever identical with itself,

and is the common support of all that is below it. It

Fs as in the circle, where the centre, remaining immovable in itself, nevertheless is the origin of all the radii

originating there, and drawing their existence thence.

The radii by thus participating in the existence of the

centre, the radii s principle, depend on what is in

divisible, remaining attached thereto, though separating

in every direction.

2

BETWEEN THEM IS AN INDIVISIBLE ESSENCE WHICHBECOMES DIVISIBLE WITHIN BODIES.

Now between entirely indivisible("Being")

which

occupies the first rank amidst intelligible beings, and

the (essence) which is entirely divisible in its sense-

objects, there is, above the sense-world, near it, andwithin

it, a"being"

of another nature, which is not,

like bodies, completely divisible, but which, neverthe

less, becomes divisible within bodies. Consequently,when you separate bodies, the form within them also

divides, but in such a way that it remains entire in

each part. This identical (essence), thus becoming




manifold, has parts that are completely separated fromeach other; for it then is a divisible form, such as

colors, and all the qualities, like any form which can

simultaneously remain entire in several things entirely

separate, at a distance, and foreign to each other be

cause of the different ways in which they are affected.

We must therefore admit that this form (that resides

in bodies) is also divisible.

BY PROCESSION THE SOUL CONNECTS THE TWO.

Thus the absolutely divisible (essence) does not

exist alone; there is another one located immediatelybeneath it, and derived from it. On one hand, this

inferior (essence) participates in the indivisibility of

its principle; on the other, it descends towards another

nature by its procession. Thereby it occupies a

position intermediary between indivisible and primary

(essence), (that is, intelligence), and the divisible (es

sence) which is in the bodies. Besides it is not in the

same condition of existence as color and the other

qualities; for though the latter be the same in all cor

poreal masses, nevertheless the quality in one body is

completely separatefrom that in another,

just

as

physical masses themselves are separate from each

other. Although (by its essence) the magnitude of

these bodies be one, nevertheless that which thus is

identical in each part does not exert that communityof affection which constitutes sympathy,

3 because to

identity is added difference. This is the case because

identity is only a simple modification of bodies, and

not a "being." On the contrary, the nature that approaches the absolutely indivisible

"Being"is a genuine

"being" (such as is the soul) . It is true that she unites

with the bodies and consequently divides with them;but that hapens to her only when she communicates

herself to the bodies. On the other hand, when she

unites with the bodies, even with the greatest and most




extended of all (the world), she does not cease to be

one, although she yield herself up to it entirely.

DIVISION AS THE PROPERTY OF BODIES. BUT NOTTHE CHARACTERISTIC OF SOUL.

In no way does the unity of this essence resemble

that of the body; for the unity of the body consists in

the unity of parts, of which each is different from the

others, and occupies a different place. Nor does theunity of the soul bear any closer resemblance to the

unity of the qualities. Thus this nature that is simul

taneously divisible and indivisible, and that we call soul

is not one in the sense of being continuous (of which

each part is external to every other) ;it is divisible,

because it animates all the parts of the body it oc

cupies, but is indivisible because it entirely inheres

in the whole body, and in each of its parts.4 When

we thus consider the nature of the soul, we see her

magnitude and power, and we understand howadmirable and divine are these and superior natures.

Without any extension, the soul is present throughoutthe whole of extension; she is present in a location,

though she be not present therein.5 She is simul

taneously divided and undivided, or rather, she is neverreally divided, and she never really divides; for she

remains entire within herself. If she seem to divide,

it is not in relation with the bodies, which, by virtue

of their own divisibility, cannot receive her in an

indivisible manner. Thus division is the property of

the body, but not the characteristic of the soul.

SOUL AS BOTH ESSENTIALLY DIVISIBLE ANDINDIVISIBLE.

2. Such then the nature of the soul had to be.

She could not be either purely indivisible, nor purely

divisible, but she necessarily had to be both indivisible




and divisible, as has just been set forth. This is fur

ther proved by the following considerations. If the

soul, like the body, have several parts differing from

each other, the sensation of one part would not in

volve a similar sensation in another part. Each part

of the soul, for instance, that which inheres in the

finger, would feel its individual affections, remaining

foreign to all the rest, while remaining within itself. In

short,in each one of us would inhere several

managingsouls (as said the Stoics).6

Likewise, in this universe,

there would be not one single soul (the universal Soul) ,

but an infinite number of souls, separated from each

other.

POLEMIC AGAINST THE STOIC PREDOMINATINGPART OF THE SOUL.

Shall we have recourse to the (Stoic) "continuity of

parts"

7 to explain the sympathy which interrelates all

the organs? This hypothesis, however, is useless,

unless this continuity eventuate in unity. For wecannot admit, as do certain (Stoic) philosophers, whodeceive themselves, that sensations focus in the

"pre

dominating principle" by "relayed transmission."* To

begin with, it is a wild venture to predicate a "pre

dominating principle" of the soul. How indeed could

we divide the soul and distinguish several parts therein ?

By what superiority, quantity or quality are we going to

distinguish the "predominating part"in a single con

tinuous mass? Further, under this hypothesis, we

may ask, Who is going to feel? Will it be the"pre

dominating part" exclusively, or the other parts with

it? If that part exclusively, it will feel only so longas the received impression will have been transmitted

to itself, in its particular residence; but if the impression impinge on some other part of the soul, which

happens to be incapable of sensation, this part will not

be able to transmit the impression to the (predomin-




ating) part that directs, and sensation will not occur.

Granting further that the impression does reach thepredominating* part itself, it might be received in a

twofold manner; eitherby

one of its (subdivided)

parts, which, having perceived the sensation, will not

trouble the other parts to feel it, which would be use

less; or, by several parts simultaneously, and then wewill have manifold, or even infinite sensations which

will all differ from each other. For instance, the one

might say, "It is I who first received the impression";

the other one might say, "I received the imression first

received by another"; while each, except the first, will

be in ignorance of the location of the impression; or

again, each part will make a mistake, thinking that the

impression occurred where itself is. Besides, if every

part of the soul can feel as well as the predominating

part, why at all speak of a "predominating part?"

What need is there for the sensation to reach throughto it? How indeed would the soul recognize as an

unity the result of multiple sensations; for instance, of

such as come from the ears or eyes ?

THE SOUL HAS TO BE BOTH ONE AND MANIFOLD,EVEN ON THE STOIC HYPOTHESES.

On the other hand, if the soul were absolutely one,

essentially indivisible and one within herself, if her

nature were incompatible with manifoldness and divi

sion, she could not, when penetrating into thebody,

animate it in its entirety; she would place herself in

its centre, leaving the rest of the mass of the animal

lifeless. The soul, therefore, must be simultaneously

one and manifold, divided and undivided, and we mustnot deny, as something impossible, that the soul,

though one and identical, can be in several parts of the

body simultaneously. If this truth be denied, this will

destroy the "nature that contains and administers the

universe" (as said the Stoics) ;which embraces every-



282 WORKS OF; PLOTINOS [21

thing at once, and directs everything with wisdom; a

nature thatis

both manifold, because all beings aremanifold; and single, because the principle that con

tains everything must be one. It is by her manifold

unity that she vivifies all parts of the universe, while

it is her indivisible unity that directs everything with

wisdom. In the very things that have no wisdom, the

unity that in it plays the predominating "part,"imi

tates the unity of the universal Soul. That is what

Plato wished to indicate allegorically by these divine

words9: "From the

"Being"that is indivisible and ever

unchanging; and from the"being"

which becomes

divisible in the bodies, the divinity formed a mixture,

a third kind of"being."

The (universal) Soul, there

fore, is (as we have just said) simultaneously one and

manifold; the forms of the bodies are both manifold

and one; the bodies are only manifold; while thesupreme Principle (the One), is exclusively an unity.

1 See iv. 1.22. 2 See iii. 8.7. Plac. Phil. v. 21 ; Cicero, de3 See iv. 2.2. * See iv. 3.19, 22, Nat. Deor. ii. 11. The "pre-

23 ; iv. 4.28. 5 See iv. 3.20-22. dominating principle" had ap-6Cicero, de Nat. Deor. ii. 31-33. peared in Plato s Timaeus, p.

7 See 4.7.6, 7. *Plutarch, de 41. 9 Of the Timaeus, p. 35.

Paragraph 3, of this book (iv. 2, 21) will be found in its

logical position judging by the subject matter, on pages 75 to

78, in the middle of iv. 7, 2.



1964

B693

UE5v.l

PlotlnusComplete works

RobartsLibraryDU E DATE:

Ct. 29, 1996

fines50? per day

plotinus, complete works, vol 1 kenneth sylvan guthrie (1918)

Documents